Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson). (Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Rules, I am extremely troubled by the lengths to which the majority has gone to block a real debate on trade. This self-executing rule denies us the opportunity to debate, amend or offer a substitute; and if this resolution passes, the bill passes. Last week, before the Committee on Rules, the leadership kept insisting that this 191-page document is necessary to ensure that the House is not steamrolled by the Senate in the conference committee. If so, then this rule should simply strip away the Senate provisions. This measure does not leave us with legislation identical to what the House passed by a one-vote margin. It actually alters the substance of the Senate version and in some ways weakens our current trade laws. With all due respect, I have all the confidence in the world that the Members we send to conference will be tenacious, so what is the chairman afraid of? A real debate? That Members of the body actually reading this document might have some questions or objections? Mr. Speaker, I know first hand about the sometime high price of trade. In the Rochester, New York, area and throughout upstate New York, I hear constantly from constituents who no longer, but used to have, well-paying, stable jobs with well-established American firms. This rule places new hurdles in front of unemployed families struggling to maintain health care coverage. It reduces the health care tax credit to 60 percent and means tested based on the prior year's income. It simply shortchanges American workers. Mr. Speaker, I also believe the omission of the Dayton-Craig provision signals to our trading partners that the U.S. is ready to cave on U.S. trade remedy laws, and that is absolutely the wrong message. Moreover, the rule further undermines our trade laws by including new language that undermines our existing anti-dumping laws. The inclusion of language subjecting ``abusive'' anti-dumping laws of our trading partners to negotiations actually undermines our efforts to rigorously enforce our anti-dumping trade laws. If we ask our trading partners to put their anti-dumping laws on the table, we open the door to doing the same. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It denies Members from engaging in a real trade debate on issues that affect real Americans.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, our constituents are reeling from the daily headlines that highlight the corporate implosions. Companies like Enron, Tyco International and Adelphia Communications, once the darlings of Wall Street and 401(k) managers, are now threatening the retirement security of thousands of Americans. I know of which I speak. Global Crossing's North American headquarters were located in my district of Rochester, New York. I am sure my colleagues know Global Crossing. This is the company that plummeted from a net worth of $22 billion to just $750 million in a span of less than a year. In the wake of its collapse, the lives of thousands in my district were shattered, all because promised safeguards failed at every level. My constituents got a hard lesson in how companies cheat, overstate or obscure their financial disclosures in an effort to charm analysts and manipulate investor expectations. Many of our constituents were also stunned to learn the top executives from many of these failing companies walked away with millions, while the pensioners and employees were left penniless. On March 9, I hosted a public forum in Rochester where 250 people came to share their experiences on Global Crossing. One constituent noted, ``Many former employees have been economically devastated as a result of corporate greed and mismanagement of Global Crossing. People have spent their life savings and have had to cash in their deflated retirement 401(k) plans just to survive these last few months after Global Crossing abruptly ceased their promised severance payments.'' Some former employees are now forced to file bankruptcy themselves while others may lose their homes and have had to drastically change their lifestyles and are barely surviving. Since the collapse of Global Crossing, I have worked to ensure that the interests of current and former Global Crossing and Frontier employees are not forgotten in the bankruptcy proceedings. Indeed, I have asked the court to order expedited lump-sum payments to former employees and to give employee stockholders priority status during the proceedings. But, Mr. Speaker, fundamental reform is required. We have an opportunity today to tackle some of the most egregious outcomes of these bankruptcies. It is unconscionable that executives can walk away from failing companies where pension plans are depleted. Congress should tackle the double standard that exists between workers and their executives. The so-called golden parachutes are a slap in the face to the work and trust afforded these executives by the working men and women of this country. If we are serious about enhancing pension participation, workers must have confidence that Congress is doing all it can to protect them against corporate corruption. The substitute before us is an important step. For starters, it would put a halt to executives resigning and receiving large severance packages while shareholders are left holding worthless stock. The substitute would extend the golden parachute excise tax to severances and retirement benefits when there is a large reduction in the employer's stock or when the corporation goes into bankruptcy. Moreover, the substitute would eliminate the ability of corporations to provide performance-based tax double compensation in excess of $1 million if performance includes cost savings from raiding pension plans. Corporate executives should only receive tax deductible bonuses for real improvement of business operations, not fictitious improvements. And corporate executives should not be rewarded for cutting employees' pension benefits through conversion of the pension plan to a less costly plan. Finally, when a corporation incorporates overseas to avoid United States taxes, the ordinary shareholders are required to pay capital gains tax on the exchange of their old stock for their new stock. But guess what? Corporate executives are not required to recognize gain on their stock options. The substitute would require executives to pay taxes on their stock options when the corporation moves overseas just as share shareholders are required to do. Mr. Speaker, much is at stake here. The stability of our financial markets has been severely undermined by a perception of widespread corruption. This instability is hitting shareholders hardest, many of whom are middle-class workers whose only involvement in the stock market is their 401(k). Congress must once again take the lead. Since the 1970s, Congress has been an important proponent for expanded savings participation. The enactment of tax incentives for retirement savings, together with the establishment of new investment vehicles, such as the Roth Individual Retirement Account, has significantly enhanced the level of pension participation among a larger cross-section of the American workforce. But these gains can be obliterated in a heartbeat if we do not take the serious and justifiable fears of our Nation's workers into account. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 yield 4 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.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 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, I have no request for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, at a time when large corporations and manufacturers are announcing layoffs and scaling back production, more and more regions of the country are learning what western New York already knows; that the small business sector can be the real economic engine for our communities. Small businesses generate the jobs that keep our cities and towns vibrant, they generate the opportunities that anchor our sons and daughters to family and home, and they foster the innovators who represent the brightest hope for our future. Last month I was pleased to host the Small Business Administration's 2002 Young Entrepreneur of the Year, a young man named Aaron Zach Philips from Rochester, New York. Although only 25 years old, Zach has achieved remarkable success. He is the president of Kink BMX, a manufacturer and distributor of BMX bicycle parts and related soft goods. Since 1999, Zach has doubled his company's growth annually with sales reaching nearly $1 million as of March 31, 2001. Zach now does business outside the United States and sells his product through distributors in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan. On every mailing logo, every label, every brochure or marketing tool he prints the words ``Rochester Made Means Quality Made.'' Zach embodies a growing trend that Congress must continue to foster. Small businesses now account for approximately 75 percent of all new jobs added to the economy and represent 99.7 percent of all employers. Small businesses provide almost one-third of the workers with their first jobs and initial on-the-job training in basic skills. The important role small businesses play in keeping our Nation competitive must not be overshadowed by corporate America's clout in this body. We must ensure that entrepreneurs like Zach are afforded the same attention and access to Washington that the large corporate interests enjoy. A quick look at the numbers show that small businesses form the backbone of our economy. They account for half of our domestic products and contribute more than 55 percent of the innovations in such sectors as manufacturing, technology and services. During the long boom of the 1990s, small businesses forged the way for high-tech expansion and growth. They now account for almost 40 percent of the jobs in the high- technology sector. One reason for this is that women and minorities are opening small businesses in record numbers. Women-owned businesses nearly doubled during the last decades. There are currently an estimated 6.2 million women-owned businesses, accounting for 28 percent of all privately held firms. These firms generate $1.15 trillion in sales and employ 9.2 million workers. The number of minority-owned enterprises nearly quadrupled in the last decade, and they generally outstrip the national average in business creation and receipts. Minorities now own 15 percent of American business, and 99 percent of these businesses are small businesses. Congress has addressed the needs of small business before. We have passed paperwork reduction legislation, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act, PRA, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Moreover, the last administration streamlined regulations by reinventing government and implementing many of the recommendations made by the White House Conference on Small Businesses. The measure before us today continues this effort to reduce unnecessary paperwork for small businesses. I know of no opposition to this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 209, 210, 211, and 212. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of them. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 207 and 208. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am stunned that this leadership can take an overwhelmingly popular and important measure, a measure that passed through Committee by voice vote, and load it with so many controversial provisions. This measure employs procedural gimmicks that silence the voice of both Democrat and Republican alike. Whether the issue is Social Security, defense, budget, taxes, retirement--you name it--we're cut off. Amendments are blocked and debate shut down. Today, however, this leadership has truly outdone itself. The Leadership has inserted technical language into the Supplemental bill that will allow a huge increase in the debt limit to occur without an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. This stealth maneuver will provide a germane hook so that Republicans can later insert a debt limit increase into the conference report. This leadership is asking us to ignore its fiscal mismanagement of the budget and its inability to stick to the budget policies that fostered federal budget surpluses--not deficits. This rule does nothing to address the burgeoning public debt and mortgages the Social Security Trust Fund. This leadership is simply not dealing in reality. There refusal to engage in any debate on raising the debt ceiling is just the latest in a pattern of running roughshod over the rules of the House. Just last month, this leadership gutted an adoption tax credit bill to ensure consideration of legislation making the President's tax cut permanent through this body--without having a real debate. This leadership refuses to acknowledge that making the tax cut permanent will diminish the government's financial standing by $4 trillion just as the Baby Boom retirement reaches full force, between 2013 and 2022. Budget Picture Let's take a step back and really look at how we got here. The deterioration of the budget outlook over the past 12 months is truly stunning. President Bush came to office with an unprecedented budgetary bounty--eight consecutive years of budget improvement yielded four years of surplus and $453 billion in repayment of publicly held debt. No increase in the debt ceiling has been needed since 1997 and, last year, the Administration predicted that we would not need a debt limit increase until 2008, even with enactment of the President's tax cut. But, by August 2001, well before September 11th, Treasury was indicating that the debt ceiling would need to be raised next year. Thus, assertions that the debt problem is the result of September 11th or the war on terrorism simply don't wash. Today, the ten-year $5.6 trillion surplus seems like a pipe-dream and we must adjust to a new reality--long-term deficits. The interests of the people of my district or the nation, at large, are not served by moving the goal posts, with respect to debt, and not setting forth a plan to get the budget back on track.