Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. In my district close to 60,000 people remain unemployed due to a slowing economy. This measure will do little or nothing to alleviate the suffering of these families, and these statistics do not include the news this week that Eastman Kodak will cut 650 more jobs in my district or that Frontier Telephone will cut an additional 100 from its ranks almost immediately, before Thanksgiving Day. In New York since the enactment of temporary Federal legislation in March of this year, the unemployed workers have been able to qualify for federally funded benefits which in New York can last up to 13 weeks, but this program is proving wildly inadequate for New York. Exceptionally large numbers of workers are running out of Federal benefits before they find new employment. The severity of the exhaustion problem reflects the State's shaky labor market, and I wish I could say that New York was alone, but my colleagues know better. The measure before us not only fails to make necessary improvements to the program, it fails even to extend the program in its current form. In the vast majority of States, it would provide no additional weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits to the workers who have already exhausted their regular, State unemployment benefits and cannot find work. Under this proposal large groups of unemployed workers who will need additional weeks of unemployment benefits before job growth picks up would go without any further assistance. Between now and the end of January, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in need of assistance would fail to receive it under the majority plan. This body could do much better. My colleague from New York (Mr. Rangel) introduced legislation H.R. 5491 that would extend temporary Federal unemployment assistance for an additional 6 months through June 30, 2003. This measure would ensure that workers in every State are eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, and in States with high unemployment, like New York, workers would receive an additional 7 weeks of benefits. But it goes without saying that the measure before us today cannot be amended, and any meaningful consideration of the measure of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would be shut out under this rule. I need to clarify another point for my colleagues. The House action report today indicates that Texas, New York, and California would be deemed ``high unemployment States'' under the chairman's bill, but according to the minority Committee on Ways and Means staff, that is not correct. The bill contains no expansion of the definition to allow States other than three, Alaska Washington, and Oregon, to qualify. The problem with the current formulation which is fixed in the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is that classification as a high unemployment State is based on the insured unemployment rate, which does not include long-term unemployment. Thus, workers who receive the 13-week extension provided for in last year's tax bill, over and above the initial 26 weeks, are dropped from the calculation. So the formula is not a true measure of the unemployment situation in a State. States with long-term unemployment that exhausted their benefits are simply out of luck. Another provision of this measure represents a case of too little too late. The Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement provision purports to temporarily address the controversy surrounding physician payments, but our Nation's hospitals are left out of the fix. Again, many of my colleagues I suspect are hearing from hospitals about their critical needs, and this measure will not alleviate their struggles. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. Unlike the language in the bill which indemnifies the administration if it chooses to adjust Medicare physician payments, my amendment both protects beneficiaries from the harmful effects of physicians dropping out of the program and guarantees a payment increase for physicians. Other Medicare providers, including hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes that provide essential services to seniors and the disabled would be helped. The amendment ensures that all these providers have the resources needed to continue caring for their beneficiaries. This is about a bipartisan initiative which includes the House Republican provider package from earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can offer this important amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to come to the well today to congratulate my colleagues for crafting a measure in the nick of time that addressed the real need in the communities. But like the vast majority of the legislation emerging from the 107th Congress, this is a pitiful stopgap measure that in the end will benefit far fewer than the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests. I wish the unemployed had the lobbying might of the credit card companies who are enjoying the consideration of a last minute bankruptcy bill that will hammer our most vulnerable constituents, or even the insurance companies at the moment being blessed with a last minute measure to absolve them of liability in the event of future attacks, but the unemployed do not have the attention of the majority party and we do not believe they ever will. The measure before us today is woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing the needs of our Nation's unemployed workers. I would note that these are newly unemployed workers, those that have paid into the system in the event of an economic slowdown. Mr. Speaker, the economy has not hit a soft patch. It is in a recession. Moreover, the money these workers paid into the system is there. They are workers who paid into the system when times were good and are now in need when the economy is rough. Why put obstacles in front of working families that need this aid? Indeed, most of our constituents will not qualify for an additional 13 weeks of benefits in this bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary half hour, 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, and we will call a vote on that, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule. Unlike the language in the bill which indemnifies the administration if it chooses to adjust Medicare physician payments, my amendment both protects beneficiaries from the harmful effects of physicians dropping out of the program, and guarantees a payment increase for the physicians. Other Medicare providers, including hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing homes also provide essential care to seniors and the disabled. The amendment ensures that all these providers have the resources needed to continue caring for the beneficiaries. This is a bipartisan initiative which includes the House Republican provider package from earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can offer this important amendment, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 oppose this rule. The measure appeared at 7 a.m. this morning at the Committee on Rules with no opportunity for Members to review it beforehand, and no amendments are allowed. For those two reasons I will oppose this rule. I would note that creating a Department of Homeland Security was the Democrat Party's idea and has been a Democratic priority since September 11 made clear America's terrifying vulnerabilities to terrorism. For 8 long months after the terrorist attacks this last year, Democrats were almost alone in insisting that the government be reorganized to make homeland security a cabinet-level priority. Sure, we had the support of a few brave Republicans, but the leadership of the Republican Party strongly opposed the idea. House Republican leaders blocked the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House argued strenuously that America did not need it. Then, Mr. Speaker, something happened to change Republican minds in Washington. Simply put, the public learned the full magnitude of the FBI's incompetence before September 11. As the entire Nation watched, FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley explained how the FBI leadership had hindered our investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui; and the White House realized it had a major political problem, so they flip-flopped to save their political skin. However, unfortunately, they did not stop using homeland security as a political prop since then. In the House, they refused bipartisanship on all substantive matters, and stuffed their own partisan pet projects into the bill. In the other body, the Republicans used procedural tactics to repeatedly block homeland security until after the election so they would have a partisan club to use against Democrats like Max Cleland, a decorated war hero. Make no mistake, Americans do not have the Department of Homeland Security today because Republicans obstructed and politicized it for so long. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats remain committed to increasing the safety of the American people. Unfortunately, the so-called compromise on personnel issues does more for the ideology than for the workers we are about to entrust with our homeland security. It sets up a notification and mediation process; but at the end of the day, the administration can still ignore civil service protections if it wants. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a mistake that could harm the effectiveness of the new Department. I am also concerned with what will happen with freedom of information, whether the answer can just be given: ``You may not have that information because it is hidden away in the Department of Homeland Security.'' But it is the civil service system that protects Americans against the spoils system that allows politicians to award their friends and supporters with important government jobs. We should not be stepping away from that. It is crucial that the Department of Homeland Security be staffed by professionals, not the political cronies of whichever party happens to hold the White House. Because of the procedural way in which this is being brought to the floor, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, and 470. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on rollcall votes 464, 466, 467, and 469, and no on rollcall votes 468, and 470. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote. On Approving the Journal, No. 464, ``aye''; S. 1533, Health Care Safety Net Amendments, No. 466, ``aye''; H. Res. 585, Moving the Previous Question, No. 467, ``aye''; H. Res. 585, Rule on H.J. Res. 123, Continuing Resolution, No. 468, ``no''; H.J. Res. 123, Motion to Recommit, No. 469, ``aye''; H.J. Res. 123, Final Passage, No. 470, ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taylor motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill. Many of our retired military personnel have made tremendous sacrifices while defending our nation. As Congress debates entering a new military conflict, I find the timing of the Administration's reluctance to support this provision ill-chosen. Under current regulation, veterans must essentially pay their own disability compensation out of their retirement benefits. No other profession restricts the concurrent payment of disability and retirement benefits One of my constituents, who served in the Army for nearly 20 years and fought in Vietnam where he was injured, must deduct his $864 monthly disability compensation from the $1650 monthly retirement benefit for which he is eligible. The Senate language would put $864 more dollars into this veteran's pocket each month. I am aware of many veterans who would benefit from this change. I urge the conferees to include the Senate-passed language which would immediately assist the veterans in my district. They cannot afford to wait another four years for full relief. We owe it to these individuals to provide the entire compensation they deserve.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that one does not have to be a microbiologist, as I am, to know that we do not send a country Anthrax, botulism, and deadly viruses to cure malaria unless we expect that cure to be death; and I believe that was precisely what the intent was. It was supposed to be used against Iran.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has begun a historic debate on the most serious topic that we have ever considered by this body, the question of whether to go to war. The Constitution states explicitly that Congress shall have the power to declare war. This great and terrible power is vested not in the individual of the President, but in the collective will of the electorate as embodied by its representatives. Members can cast no more weighty vote than this. That said, Mr. Speaker, every bone in my body is telling me that the American people do not want this conflict, nor do they believe this resolution is warranted at this present time. The voices are drowned out by the drumbeat for war emanating from Washington. These voices are not confident that the body has asked the tough questions. They are not confident that the shifting rationales for the invasion are anything but a war in search of a justification. In the last 2 months alone, more than 1,100 people have called or written my office expressing intense disapproval of any U.S. military action against Iraq. That contrasts with 15 who support it. These voices are not an anomaly. Members from both sides of the aisle are hearing them. I believe more and more that they represent the majority of the Nation. Like most of my colleagues, I have thought and reflected at length on this vote. It is never an easy decision for a Member of Congress to make lightly. I would like to share with my colleagues and constituents the issues and questions that have led me to oppose this resolution as written and not to send young Americans into harm's way. First I want to discuss the source of Iraq's bioweapons. Saddam Hussein is not a new threat for the United States. Since he took power in 1979, Hussein has committed a laundry list of human rights abuses, despotic acts and crimes against the global community. In 1990, this Chamber voted to empower the President to wage war against Iraq in order to free Kuwait and in order to preserve stability in the Middle East. Yet the policy by the United States has not always been clear. Most people do not know that during the early 1980s the Reagan administration, followed by the first Bush administration, backed Iraq in its war against Iran on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. At that time, the Commerce Department of the United States approved a series of exports to the Iraqi Government of substances that will now sound familiar to many Americans. The administration allowed Iraq to receive biological samples of anthrax, the bacteria that makes botulinum toxin, the germs that cause gas gangrene, and West Nile virus, among others. Sure, he has biological weapons. We gave them to him. Clearly one must address Iraq and its arsenal, but we can go forward without alienating our friends and allies within the region. Indeed, our allies are critical to winning the war on terror, on which we have already embarked, just as they were an important part of the 1991 coalition that led to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Moreover, our allies financed that conflict. I am deeply troubled by the administration's unwillingness to address the long-term strategy of Iraq. The President has failed to articulate any plan for dealing with the future of Iraq if and when Saddam Hussein is removed. Is Saddam's removal the final goal? Or will the United States be expected to engage in the reconstruction of Iraq? Will our country be involved in overhauling their political institutions, the Iraqi economy, or its infrastructure? What if our invasion sparks more terror and a wider war in the Middle East? Are the American people ready to make these commitments? Why do we think that rank-and-file Muslims in the Middle East will support America in a war with Iraq, as they did in the early '90s? With millions of Muslims watching death and destruction on television, blaming the United States, is our strategy really one that will stabilize that region? None of these questions have been addressed publicly by the President, and we should not vote to authorize any President to initiate an open-ended conflict with so many unanswered questions. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, why now? What has changed? Saddam Hussein has been a threat in the region since he invaded Kuwait 12 years ago, and yet we left him alone. He has not ever cooperated basically with the United Nations since shortly after the 1991 cease- fire when the Security Council demanded that Iraq cooperate with weapons inspectors. He has not fully cooperated in more than 10 years; and as President Bush has noted, it has been 4 years since a U.N. inspector has been allowed inside Iraq. So if nothing has changed in the past 4 years, why are we going after Iraq now? If there are new developments and concerns, why does the administration not share them with us? The emotional and financial costs of any such action can be felt for a generation or more. In a time when our economy is reeling, when our stock market is spiralling, when the safety nets such as Social Security and Medicaid that have sustained our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens are threatened, this body needs to take a hard look at what this Nation's priorities are and why we are undertaking this and ask again, Why now? Mr. Speaker, I vote against this resolution with a heavy heart, but I am fortunate that there will be a resolution we can support by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) which does all the following things we have talked about, making sure that diplomacy and all other avenues have been explored before we make this extraordinary decision.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of expanding the areas of Renewal Communities, RC, based on the most recent census information. This is an issue of great importance to Western New York, since Rochester, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls are each designated as Renewal Communities. The RC Initiative combines tax credits and other provisions designed to revive some of the nation's more impoverished, distressed areas. These cities can take advantage of federal wage credits, tax deductions, capital gains exclusions, and bond financing to stimulate economic development and job growth. Each incentive is tailored to meet the particular needs of a business and offers a significant inducement for companies to locate and hire additional workers. Rochester needs these incentives to expand jobs and promote business investment in our downtown area. The statistics from my district paint the bleak picture. In the past year, we lost 12,400 jobs, including 300 from Global Crossing; the jobless rate is at an 18-year high; and in the last decade, 41 percent of Rochester citizens between the ages of 20 to 34 have left town. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3100, which would allow the areas designated as renewal communities to be updated based on 2000 census data, instead of 1990 census data. Due to a loss of population in the 1990s, my area would greatly benefit from this change. According to Fannie Mae, this technical change would allow 14 more census tracts to qualify in Rochester, 16 more tracts in Buffalo-Lackawanna, and seven additional census tracts in Niagara Falls. Now that the House of Representatives has passed this legislation, I urge the Senate to quickly add its voice of approval before we adjourn for the year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment that the House Leadership has turned a deaf ear to the concerns that preoccupy Americans. Among the chief concerns voiced by my constituents, in addition to the high cost of prescription drugs and the need to protect their retirement savings, is the need to extend temporary federal unemployment assistance. Over 60 percent of workers receiving extended benefits are currently exhausting all of their Federal benefits before finding work. By the end of August, 135,000 New Yorkers depleted their unemployment benefits and without timely action by this Congress--this number is certain to rise. New York, in particular, is struggling with an unemployment crisis that rates among the severest in the country. Over 550,000 New Yorkers are out of work today. Mr. Speaker, in Western New York, the unemployment situation is particularly terrible as evidenced by the 5.1 percent unemployment rate in Rochester and 5.5 percent in the Buffalo- Niagara Falls area. Mr. Speaker, certainly Rochesterians, as well as residents throughout Western New York, are acutely sensitive to their vulnerability to economic despair, triggered by the loss of a good job. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the current recession, long-term unemployment has increased faster than any part of the past 5 recession. In fact, the percentage increase in workers that exhausted regular 13 weeks of benefits has risen 121 percent between 2000 and 2002. Mr. Speaker, if our economy is in recovery, it is certainly a ``jobless one.'' Companies did not add workers in September. Mr. Speaker, the debate today should be over how to respond to the needs of the 1.5 million jobless Americans who have already exhausted their Federal unemployment benefits, and to hundreds of thousands of other workers who will exhaust their benefits in the coming months. My colleague, Mr. Rangel, introduced legislation, H.R. 5491, that would extend temporary federal unemployment assistance for an additional six months, through June 30, 2003. This measure would ensure that workers in every State are eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. In States with high unemployment, like New York, workers would receive an additional 7 weeks of benefits. Inaction by this Congress risks the economic security of some 3 million workers and their families in the next five months. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Congress listen to the needs of growing numbers of Americans undergoing real economic hardship and act to extend temporary unemployment assistance.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink, beloved representative from the State of Hawaii for over 24 years, who passed away last week at age 74. She is survived by her husband John Mink, and their daughter, Gwendolyn, and I extend my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to them on their loss. Congresswoman Mink has had a distinguished and extraordinary career, both in the private sector and public service. After serving the Hawaii state legislature, she was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1965, and was the first minority woman to serve in the U.S. Congress. However, this was not the first barrier she broke through. Congresswoman Mink earned a law degree at the University of Chicago in 1951, and subsequently was the first Japanese-American woman attorney in Hawaii. Her frustration at her inability to find employment due to her gender led to her first involvement in politics. According to The Honolulu Advertiser, Congresswoman Mink recalled that ``I didn't start off wanting to be in politics--I wanted to be a learned professional, serving the community. But they weren't hiring women just then. Not being able to get a job from anybody changed things.'' Her early first-hand experience with these issues led to her vocal championing of legislative responses to the problem--most notably the landmark Women's Educational Equality Act, otherwise known as Title IX, which was passed 30 years ago and mandates gender equality in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. In the years since, the athletic scholarship money available to women has increased from $100,000 in 1972 to $197 million in 1997. However, Title IX also has a significant impact in the fight for parity in academic fields. One of the most important areas to reach parity in is math and science education and access to technology and technological training. These areas hold the key to achievement and employment for women now and in the future. The gains we have made in each of these areas could not have been possible without her principled leadership. Another issue on which Congresswoman Mink led was opposition to the Vietnam War. After being elected in the fall of 1964, she was one of Congress' most vocal opponents of the prolonged military campaign. Indeed, she and fellow member Representative Bella Abzug of New York flew to Paris to talk to participants in the Vietnam War Peace Talks. Although this position brought her scathing criticism from many sources, including her own constituents, she always did what she felt was right, even in the face of namecalling, as she was labeled ``Patsy Pink''. After leaving the House to pursue other political opportunities in the 70's, she returned to the House in 1990. Since then, she has continued to be a vocal leader for progressive causes, most recently as the lead sponsor of vital legislation on welfare reform. This legislation would have expanded educational opportunities for women struggling to leave government assistance, and provided ample funding for child care. Her commitment to the needs of women and children could never be questioned. Indeed, in lieu of flowers, her family has asked that donations be made to the Patsy Takemoto Mink Education Fund for Low-Income Women and Children, which will be established in her honor. What a fitting tribute to her work. I am proud to have served with such a remarkable woman. Congresswoman Mink will be greatly missed both in this chamber and in her home state.I thank the Speaker.