Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. This body is about to blow an extraordinary opportunity to address the erosion of trust between the American people and the financial institutions that wield enormous control over their lives. Make no mistake, the outrage of our constituents is real. They are fed up with corporate fraud and abuses that have produced massive layoffs and wiped out the life savings of thousands of working families. The American people have voiced their outrage to this body through every medium available: letters, e-mails, hearings, interviews, you name it. They have shared stories of devastation, of loss, and dreams deferred, all in the hope that Congress would act to prevent future scandals. Global Crossing's North American headquarters are located in my district in Rochester, New York. I am sure Members remember Global Crossing. The company was the darling of Wall Street, yet somehow it managed to plummet from a net worth of $22 billion to $750 million in the span of less than a year, not too far from AOL Time Warner, we hear this morning. In the wake of its collapse, the lives of thousands in my district were shattered, all because the promised safeguards failed at every level. My people got a hard lesson on how companies cheat, overstate, or obscure their financial disclosures in an effort to charm analysts and to manipulate investor expectations. On March 9, I hosted a public forum in Rochester where 250 people came to share their experiences. One Global Crossing employee noted, and I quote, ``Many former employees have been economically devastated as a result of corporate greed and the 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, have had to drastically change their lifestyles, and are barely surviving.'' Mr. Speaker, my constituents want real reform, not cosmetic changes, to correct the systemic flaws that brought about such havoc in our community. Quite simply, the market failed us, just as it did with the employees and shareholders of Enron. I had hoped to send good news back today. I had hoped to tell my constituents that this underlying bill is the real thing, that the measure before us will restore confidence and integrity to the markets, and produce tough and effective reforms. But this bill does none of that. Indeed, it creates merely the illusion of reform. In what has become standard operating procedure in this body, corporate interests are the winners. As for my colleagues, I wish I could say that what hit my community was an isolated event. I wish I could say that with the underlying bill in place, this would never happen in Members' communities. But even the sponsors of the measure acknowledge more Global Crossings and Enrons may come to light. In the months ahead, another Member of Congress will have to face thousands of panicked constituents wondering what happened to their future. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill simply sidesteps the problem. It does not provide for a strong, independent regulator for the auditing industry, but simply punts Congress' job to the Securities and Exchange Commission. To be blunt, this job is much too important to delegate. We need to create a powerful regulatory board to set strict standards for auditor independence, with sweeping investigative and disciplinary powers over audit firms. The underlying bill pays lip service to the issue of auditor independence, but provides no guarantees that an auditor will not be compromised by payments received from his client for his consulting services. It does not ban auditors from performing nonaudit services that create conflicts of interest. Moreover, the bill says nothing about the revolving door between auditors and their clients. Enron, for example, hired several Arthur Andersen auditors, even though auditors who are angling for jobs from their customers are unlikely to show much independence from them. The bill is also silent on the rotation of audit firms. If an auditor knew that after a few years a different outside auditor would scrutinize its efforts, this would create a strong incentive to keep the numbers honest. But the half-measures contained in the bill continue. For instance, the bill protects corporate wrongdoers by making it more difficult to go to court to stop officers and directors who engage in deliberate misconduct. The bill does not hold corporate CEOs accountable by requiring them to certify the accuracy of their financial statements, as the Democrat substitute would do. The underlying bill allows Enron executives and other dishonest CEOs to keep their ill-gotten gains, rather than requiring them to surrender stock bonuses and other incentive pay, as the Democrat bill provides. The underlying bill would simply study the issue. Moreover, individual investors and victims of securities fraud who want to hold the industry accountable for wrongdoing will face major legal hurdles. The committee-reported bill also does nothing to prevent securities analysts' conflicts of interest, even after investigations by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer exposed numerous examples of analysts' false or misleading advice to investors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support real reform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Members had the guts to have an open rule, they would be hearing some Democrat plans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I want to remind my colleagues and anybody listening out there that the cost of this bill is $753,713,000. The intended raise in the debt limit is $750 billion. Coincidence, I do not know; but one certainly wonders whether one has a lot to do with the other. We are going to call for a vote on the previous question. If it is defeated I am going to offer an amendment for this unfair rule. The Phelps substitute that was offered in the Committee on Rules and that the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make in order would allow the tax cuts to be made permanent upon certification by the director of the Congressional Budget Office that enactment of the legislation would not result in an on-budget deficit. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, the permanent extension of the tax cuts should not use Social Security funds; and we all stood here, both sides alike, and pledged to protect Social Security funds in a lockbox. We propose that my colleagues let that promise be kept to the American people. The procedure that the majority used to bring the bill to the floor prevents the Democrats from having a substitute motion to recommit, and only by defeating the previous question can we bring fiscal order back to the budget process. That should be the top priority of this Congress. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote.

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 demand a recorded vote.

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 oppose this closed rule and I oppose the bill that underlies it. The Committee on the Judiciary has handed us yet once again a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional and will never see the light of day because the Senate is not going to touch it. The attempt here today is to interfere with the rights of American citizens to go from one State line across the other. It is never going to work. In addition, and the most surprising thing to me, is by a vote of 16 to 12, the rapist or person who commits incest has the right of court action if anyone interferes with a pregnancy that he has caused. I think I need to say that again. A subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary voted 12 to 16 to protect the right of a rapist or someone committing incest, and give them the right of court action if anyone interferes with the pregnancy that they have caused, taking away all the rights of the child. I want to reiterate again that abortion is legal in the country. To prohibit anyone's right to across a State line for a legal purpose in the United States is foolish on the face of it, and flies in the face of the freedom that we enjoy. Are we going to put border crossings at the State lines? Are we going to stop people and check their cars and make sure that no minor is in there? Are we really willing to put people's grandmother in prison? Are we really willing to allow a rapist or someone who commits incest to go to court to sue if a pregnancy caused by their action ensues? Surely not. But this bill, again, in addition to it being terribly bad policy and its flagrant unconstitutionality, is closed, so no one could even amend it. But frankly, I do not know why anyone would want to. It is hard to amend an unconstitutional bill in such a way that we could make it constitutional. But we are talking about a fundamental right here, not something superficial. This measure tramples that right by imposing substantial new obstacles and dangers in the path of a minor seeking an abortion. It violates the rights of States. And this Congress has gone on record time after time after time believing States are far more bright than we are. If they should have the right to pass their own laws, this tramples on the rights of States to enact and enforce their own laws that govern conduct within their own State boundaries. The assaults on the Constitution do not stop there. One fundamental principle of our Federal system is a State may not project its laws onto other States. Every citizen has a right to cross a border into another State, and it has been so since the founding of this Republic. But we can do it in favor of the laws of the State that we are visiting, as long as we do not infringe upon those laws. This bill undermines this fundamental principle, saying that young women are bound by the laws of their home States, even as they traverse the Nation. On the face of it, that is absolutely foolish. Because something is legal in New York and illegal in another State, should all New Yorkers be allowed to go there and freely fly in the face of a law of the other State? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court has consistently held that States cannot prohibit the lawful out-of-State conduct of their citizens. That is a simple premise simply put, but it is absolutely one of the basics of our freedoms. Nor may they impose criminal sanctions on that behavior. That has been the law of this land for a long, long time, about 200 years, I suspect. This bill does exactly that, imposing criminal sanctions on what is literally a freedom for a United States citizen. As Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Peter Rubin of Georgetown University Center explained, the bill ``. . . amounts to a statutory attempt to force the most vulnerable class of young women to carry the restrictive laws of their home States strapped to their backs, bearing the great weight of those laws like the bars of a prison that follows them wherever they go.'' Why is this body singling out young women for this treatment? I want to urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and think what are we doing here. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but instead we are abandoning it, and indeed we are trashing it to satisfy some of the most extreme elements of the majority party. Moreover, I want my colleagues to take a close look at this bill. As noted, it would criminalize the act to bring in the minor across State lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent, but the bill does not stop there. It goes on to provide prison time for grandparents or an adult sibling or members of the clergy who may have tried to help a minor obtain medical care and subjects them to civil action by a parent who may have raped and impregnated the minor. Even a cab driver, even a cab driver who drove this minor is subject to criminal penalty. We had one amendment trying to remove that in the Committee on Rules and it was not allowed. Let me put this another way: The bill allows the father who rapes or anybody who is carting this child, rapes or impregnates his minor daughter, to sue, to sue for damages. Can my colleagues imagine that? Do my colleagues want to go back home and tell people that that is what they voted for in the House of Representatives? It locks the victim of incest into requiring consent from an incestuous parent. That is the quality of the legislation we are considering today and the leadership ought to be ashamed. Several amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules to address some of these egregious provisions, but none were allowed. The closed rule is a final slap in the face of our colleagues, and the victims of these crimes. Vulnerable young women, deserve better. We all want active and supportive parents involved in their children's major decisions, but many young women have a justifiable fear that they will be physically abused if they are forced to disclose their pregnancy to their parent. Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to consult their parents have experienced violence in the family. Forcing young women in these circumstances to notify the parent of their pregnancies may only exacerbate the dangerous cycle of violence in these families. This is the cruel lesson of one young Idaho teenager who was shot to death by her father after he learned she was planning to terminate a pregnancy caused by his act of incest. Shot to death by the man who had raped her. Despite our noblest intentions, Congress cannot legislate health and family communications. The political cynicism this rule embraces today would be comical if young women's lives were not at stake. Congress once again is placing its political agenda ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe and appropriate medical care. As a Member of Congress and mother of three daughters and long-time advocate of women's health, I strongly believe that the health of American women matter, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and on the underlying bill. Please do not go home and say that we put the rights of the rapist or the perpetrator of incest above other citizens of the United States and tried to restrict their right to move across State lines. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind my colleagues who are probably in their offices, I know a lot are in markups and doing other things, that what is before us today is a restriction of American citizens to cross State lines, not just the case of what they call the minor child, but we are restricting the right of a grandparent, a clergy person, any adults, brothers, sisters, siblings, even cab drivers the right to carry people across State lines. It is unheard of. I do not suppose any bill ever passed the House of Representatives saying we are going to restrict travel of American citizens for legal purposes. That is one of the most important issues here. Even when we talk about not being able to amend it, I do not know how you could amend it to make it correct, because, on the face of it, it is certainly most unconstitutional. The second most egregious part of it personally is the fact, as I pointed out before, the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 16 to 12 voted to give a rapist or a person who commits incest the right of action against the minor child or anyone who tries to help the child get an abortion. In other words, protection of his work took precedence over the right of that minor. There has been a lot of talk about 11- and 12-year-old girls being in that situation. Frankly, no 11- or 12-year-old girl should be giving birth. If this society allows it or even encourages it, there is really some debate we need to have on that. The health of young people is very important to this House, and we have voted time and time again to try to talk about what we want to do for our children. But believe me, if the House of Representatives goes on record today saying that rapists and people who perpetrate incest have rights of action against anyone trying to help a minor child, and if it goes on record today saying that we have the right to restrict American travel of American citizens across State lines for legal purposes, we will be talked about for years to come as to whether or not we are really up to the job that we took when we raised our right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill today. I will not call a vote on the rule, but this underlying bill is something that is really quite remarkable in its unintelligence, and I really urge Members to vote ``no'' on it today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today we opened this legislative day with a prayer from the Reverend Norvel Goff, Sr. I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues and the country about Reverend Goff and the significant role he plays in my community. Reverend Goff has served as pastor of Baber African Methodist Episcopal Church in Rochester since 1991. He has been an outstanding advocate in civil rights, economic justice, and peace issues in the Rochester community. Reverend Goff is joined here today by his wife, Anna Marie, and his son, Norvel, Jr., who is a law student at Howard University; and they have a younger son, John, who is a student at Morehouse College in Atlanta. Reverend Goff is a teacher, a lecturer, a writer and an outstanding orator. He has served on numerous community boards and committees in Rochester, including the Monroe County Public Defender's Advisory Board, the Community Energy Board, and Fleet Bank's Community Development Corporation Board. Reverend Goff currently serves as the president and CEO of the Greater Rochester NAACP and is chairman of the Black Ministers Alliance in Rochester. Under his leadership, the Black Ministers Alliance founded the Footprints Program, which is a partnership with local banks that has provided more than $10 million in mortgages for first-time homeowners. The Rochester chief of police recently appointed Reverend Goff as the chairman of the Faith Community Subcommittee Initiative Against Illegal Drugs in Rochester. Reverend Goff continuously displays extraordinary commitment to the children of the Baber African Methodist Episcopal community and to all the other children in Rochester. He serves as a mentor and encourages academic achievement among the area youth. Reverend Goff recognizes the children of his church who make the honor roll at a church service and takes the time to visit and have lunch with them at school and check on their progress. Reverend Goff's accomplishments in the area of civil rights, business, community and religious affairs have earned him numerous awards, including the Annual Friends of Education Award from the Rochester City School District and the Winn Newman Pay Equity Award from the National Committee on Pay Equity. Reverend Goff is truly a modern-day crusader for justice, and I am grateful for his valuable work in our community. I am pleased that the House of Representatives could have him lead us in such a powerful prayer.