Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule. I oppose the cynicism it embraces and the contempt it demonstrates for honest debate. With this rule, the Republican leadership has blocked amendments offered by Democrats, all in an effort to adapt a flawed and disingenuous budget. Our side of the aisle has made clear that the President has the firm support of this caucus when it comes to waging war on terrorism, and as a ninth generation American whose ancestors have fought in every United States conflict since the Revolutionary War, I am keenly aware of the sacrifices that war calls for. I am also keenly aware that national security does not abrogate us from pursuing the priorities important to the country. Mr. Speaker, we have promises to keep. Generations of Americans have poured billions of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise that these vital programs would be there for them when they and their loved ones retired. This body has voted five separate times to put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox and throw away the key. Yet this budget resolution breaks that promise. Indeed, the measure before us wipes out most of the Social Security surplus and decimates all of the Medicare surplus over the next 5 years. Thirty-two million retirees rely on Social Security income, and that number is increasing every day. Mr. Speaker, I am still stunned that we have fallen so far so fast. In less than a year a surplus of $5.6 trillion shrank by $4 trillion. This is the worst fiscal reversal in American history and for what? A single-minded obsession with tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the very wealthy in this Nation, and do not be fooled by today's rhetoric. The negative impact of the budget priorities of the majority were already stinging many Americans well before the tragedy that unfolded September 11. In fact, 43 percent of the surplus was already gone by then due to the tax cut. Why then in the midst of this fiscal problem do we now hear that the leadership in the House is demanding further tax cuts a month from now? Why are we jeopardizing the Nation's future for a press hit during tax time? This administration and leadership of the body has squandered an extraordinary opportunity for reasons largely unrelated to the war. The budget reverses a decade of fiscal progress and takes the country back down a perilous path of unending deficits. From 2002 through 2012, budget surpluses are converted into budget deficits, and Social Security and Medicare trust funds are raided with abandon. Mr. Speaker, virtually every independent analysis of this budget has dubbed it a sham. It omits numbers in the second 5 years even though we have employed 10-year projections since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Even more ominously this resolution uses OMB rather than CBO estimates in an effort to hide the real impact of the budget. Instead of relying on Congress' nonpartisan CBO estimates, the majority chose to use the much rosier estimates provided by the administration's political appointees at OMB. My colleagues may recall that in 1995 the other side shut down the government to insist on the use of CBO estimates. If CBO should prove correct rather than OMB, virtually the entire Social Security surplus will be gone for the next 10 years. At the very least the Committee on Rules should have allowed an amendment by Mr. Moran to pull in the reins on deficit spending to allow us to return to fiscal responsibility. The committee should have allowed the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to offer his substitute, which simply used realistic CBO cost estimates to shape the Nation's budget. Moreover, Democrats had hoped to offer amendments on a host of issues. In addition to undermining Social Security and Medicare, the resolution woefully underfunds education, a prescription drug benefit, efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. The list goes on and on. This close ruled kills honest debate on these and other issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object. Motion To Reconsider Offered By Mr. Dreier

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

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 yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Representatives Joseph Hoeffel and Christopher Smith, in offering this important resolution. H. Res. 339 urges the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to its March 31 parliamentary elections. Just over 10 years after gaining its independence from the Soviet bloc, Ukraine stands at a crossroads. On Sunday, March 31, Ukraine will hold its third parliamentary elections since becoming independent. It is widely believed that the outcome of the parliamentary elections will determine whether Ukraine continues to pursue democratic reforms, or experiences further political turmoil. As a founding member and Co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I have watched the growth of this new nation with keen interest. Their path to democratization has not been easy. More troubling, however, has been a series of scandals involving government corruption over the past 2 years. In April 2001, I was troubled to learn about the Ukrainian Parliament's vote to remove reform-minded Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko. This change in government came in the midst of the ongoing political turmoil resulting from allegations over the involvement of President Leonid Kuchma in the case of murdered journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. Meanwhile, reports of government corruption and harassment of the media have raised concerns about the Ukrainian government's commitment to democratic principles. I have spoken out for a more democratic Ukraine and expressed my continued concern about the lack of progress in the Gongadze case and recent political instability. According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights' final report on Ukraine's most recent national election, the presidential election of 1999 was marred by violations of Ukrainian election law and failed to meet a significant number of OSCE election commitments. There is now concern that the 2002 parliamentary elections will be compromised by similar violations. Recent reports on the 2002 parliamentary elections released by the Committee on Voters of Ukraine (CVU), a leading Ukrainian watchdog group on elections, have cited numerous violations in the campaign process. The intent of this resolution is to make the Government of Ukraine aware that the U.S. Congress is monitoring the conduct of the parliamentary election process closely, and will not just be focusing on Election Day results. My resolution urges the Government of Ukraine to enforce impartially the new election law signed by President Kuchma in October. The resolution also urges the Government of Ukraine to meet its commitments on democratic elections and address issues identified by the OSCE in its final report on the 1999 elections, such as state interference in the campaign and pressure on the media. Finally, the resolution calls upon the Government of Ukraine to allow both domestic and international election monitors access to the parliamentary election process. It is my hope that this resolution will send a clear message to the Government of Ukraine that the U.S. Congress will not simply rubber stamp funding requests for Ukraine without also considering the serious issues involved in Ukraine's democratic development. In particular, the conduct of the 2002 parliamentary elections will have a major impact on funding considerations when Members of Congress are again confronted with the task of blancing their support for the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship with Ukraine's progress in making democratic reforms. I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 339, and I encourage the Government of Ukraine to conduct a democratic, transparent, and fair parliamentary election process on March 31.

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 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 myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend. I appreciate that people who are unemployed, who have families to feed, who have mortgages to pay, who have no prospects immediately of a job are not terribly interested whether or not we do away with an Alternative Minimum Tax and give money back to IBM and money back to Enron and money back to major corporations in the United States. They simply want some kind of action here. In all times of trouble, when we have this kind of unemployment rate, it has been the policy of the government of the United States to extend unemployment. For some reason, we simply cannot seem to get that done here. I am appalled at that and urge that that be rectified. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider a number of suspension bills today, bills that many of us had hoped would be of critical importance to our constituents. In fact, last night rumors circulated that the leadership of the body was preparing to do what we hoped it would have done long ago and extend unemployment benefits to the thousands of workers who were laid off in the wake of the September 11 attacks. For weeks we have begged the leadership of the body time and time again to pass a clean unemployment extension bill. Recently released Labor Department data for January 2002 shows that from September 11 through January of this year more than 1.3 million workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. As of January, about 7.9 million Americans, or about 5.6 percent of the workforce, were unemployed. Over 12,000 people a day are exhausting their unemployment insurance. And earlier this year the Senate adopted a simple extension of unemployment benefits by unanimous consent. The House leadership, rather than acting expeditiously, refused to pass the same extension without tying it to a package of dying stimulus plans. The plan, no one was surprised to learn, consisted almost entirely of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. And the measure, no one was surprised to learn, went nowhere in the Senate. We now have an opportunity to do today, or we did have, what should have been done weeks ago, pass a clean unemployment bill. Were we to pass such a measure this morning, the bill could be on the President's desk immediately. But, instead, the leadership of the body is preparing to push a measure that would augment a simple extension of jobs benefits with controversial tax provisions that will kill it in the Senate. Why can we not simply extend unemployment benefits by an additional 13 weeks? Tax credits do little to aid the unemployed, many of whom are not paying taxes in the first place while out of work. A clean bill could go straight to the President, and the leadership in the body could signal to the unemployed that this House cares about the plight of their families. Today's confusion, however, will ensure just the opposite, more delay and not a penny of relief for impacted families. Mr. Speaker, this is not leadership; this is petulance. Having failed three times to pass accelerated tax breaks for upper brackets and reducing the alternative tax on corporations or actually doing away with them, the leadership is taking a fourth swing at the other body. What is stunning about this maneuver is the sheer cynicism it embraces. The leadership is making it perfectly clear that it is willing to inflict further pain on desperate families in order to have another crack at a divisive, partisan agenda. Moreover, Members of this body are being afforded little notice of what these bills contain. The House of Representatives is not a shadow government. Our rules mandate that we deliberate in the open. What aversion do we have here to regular order? Instead of informed deliberations, my colleagues are left with scant information. In fact, the bill we have been talking about has not yet been seen, and my colleagues and I have no information and no debate time on which to base decisions impacting millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, this extraordinary rule we are considering today is normally reserved for those times when Congress is hard at work, not when we are working 2\1/2\ days a week, and it needs flexibility to meet its commitments. But not today. The long stretches of idleness in this body can surely be replaced with meaningful deliberation on important measures. We just got the report of people being abused in nursing homes. We should be concerned about all the corporations in America that are registering themselves over in Bermuda to avoid paying America's taxes. While we name post offices and contemplate shooting mourning doves, the measures that impact prescription drugs and saving Social Security languish. I have a bill that would ban genetic discrimination in health insurance that has over 258 bipartisan cosponsors; and it would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States. But for over 6 years we have not been able to have that on the floor. I implore, then, if they are going to abuse the power of suspensions, to put it to good use and make a real difference in the lives of American people. Mr. Speaker, we intend to try to defeat the previous question on the rule in order to amend the rule simply to allow what should be done, a straight 13-week unemployment benefits extension bill. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of this House to support this effort because the American public demands and deserves it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is to try to help the people that need help. I know the unemployed do want jobs. I am sure that all unemployed workers thought that, during their working years when they paid their taxes, they believed that should a catastrophe hit and they lose their jobs that this government would help them out. That has been in the best tradition, to tide them over until a new job can be found; and when that job is found, I hope it will be as good as the job they lost. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on a straight 13-week extension of the unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 6 months since the tragic events of September 11. In addition to the horrendous loss of life that occurred as a result of that day, the economic destruction has been enormous. Our economy, which was already in an economic downturn before the event, has worsened considerably. Millions of American jobs have been lost since then. The unemployment benefits for many of these jobless workers have already expired. Many, many more will lose benefits in the coming weeks. We must act immediately. The other body has already passed a clean extension of these critically-needed benefits. Every day that we fail to act means economic hardships for thousands of Americans and their families. Let us stop wasting time and vote to extend the unemployment benefits. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Previous Question for H. Res. 354--Motions to Suspend the Rules In the resolution after ``(6)'' strike ``the bill (H.R. 1963)'' and all that follows through ``health insurance costs, and for other purposes'' and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery.''

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this morning the morning news from Rochester tells me that this year my district has lost 12,400 jobs. That is almost unheard of in Rochester, New York. In 1929 when the crash came, we hardly noticed it up there. Our unemployment rate has been always steady and very good, but we are bleeding jobs. I suspect for many of you, your mail must reflect mine, Can you do something about unemployment? I have lost my unemployment. My unemployment is running out. Now to add to the rest of our woes, we also have a lot of people employed by Global Crossing. I am embarrassed that the people in my district are seeing this morning that what we are most concerned about is the shooting of mourning doves, as the previous speaker said, the peace bird of the State of Wisconsin. I do not know if enough people in my district will be able to shoot enough birds to feed their family, but it does not look like we will be able to do much here on extending their unemployment benefits. I am sure they understand that we do not control the agenda of this House, or it would have been done a long time ago; and we should have been taking up the Senate bill. I urge Members to vote against the previous question and the rule to try to get some unemployment insurance up here.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my Senate colleague Patty Murray, The Emergency Contraception Education Act. This bi-partisan legislation will help educate women and health care providers across the nation about this important method of contraception. EC has often been called ``the nation's best kept secret'' because so few women in this country know that, in emergency situations, something is available that can prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse. It is estimated that almost 90 percent of women aged 18-44 have either never heard of emergency contraception, or don't know the key facts critical to the use of emergency contraception. Only one percent of women aged 18-44 have used emergency contraception. Were information about this important contraceptive choice readily available, the incidence of abortion could be drastically reduced. Our legislation is an attempt to get this information to precisely the women and health care professionals who need it. One of the reasons this bill is so necessary is because there is so much confusion surrounding emergency contraception. EC is not abortion; it is not RU-486; it is contraception. Regardless of one's position on abortion, we should all be able to support emergency contraception. EC will reduce unintended pregnancies, and therefore reduce abortions. Proof of the effectiveness of EC's ability to reduce unwanted pregnancies is found in Senator Murray's home state of Washington, where emergency contraception is available without a prescription at pharmacies. In Washington State, pharmacy access to emergency contraception has helped produce the largest declines in adolescent pregnancy and in abortion rates in the last 20 years. This legislation has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). I hope that my colleagues in both the House and Senate will join Senator Murray and me, as well as the health professionals of ACOG, in championing this important reproductive health option for women across the country.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I also have very strong concerns about the underlying bill because this body is once again beating the drum to remove what nominal protection our constituents might have in the face of powerful monopolies. I do not know about your region of the country, but where I am from, every time Congress dismantles a regulatory scheme and hands it over to the private monopolies, my constituents take it on the chin. Airfares, cable rates, utilities, you name it, all have skyrocketed in recent years after Congress or legislatures decided that unregulated monopolies, rather than ratepayers, know best. This bill poses a real threat to what meager competition we have been able to squeeze out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As my colleagues know, that act opened, or was supposed to, local markets to competition by requiring the four monopolistic, multi-billion-dollar Bell operating companies to lease elements of their local telecommunications network to competitors on a cost-plus-profit basis. Competitors simply would not have had the ability to compete against the Bells' sheer financial power without that, but it never happened. Their infrastructure continues to dominate telecommunications today. I have no doubt that passage of this legislation could put over a hundred small companies out of business. Yesterday, I met with employees of PaeTec Communications in my district of Rochester, New York. The energy, the creativity and, most importantly, the competition that these smaller companies provide are all that stand between our constituents and the unregulated monopolies. Tauzin-Dingell would be a lethal blow to scores of these small telecommunications companies who are still scratching to make inroads into the markets. Of major concern to me, moreover, is Congress' willingness to undercut government bodies from doing their job to protect consumers. Take a look at section 4(a) of the bill. It says, ``Neither the Commission, nor any State, shall have authority to regulate the rates, charges, terms, or conditions for, or entry into the provision of, any high-speed data service, Internet access service.'' So no one, not you, not me, not local ratepayers, not State legislatures, not Governors, not the FCC, not the DOJ, has any authority to step in and prevent abuses. My colleagues, this is an extraordinary hand-off of power and should give us long pause. I hope that this rule will go down and, should it pass, please vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Green amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that so many of our colleagues have been lobbying heavily to oppose the section 305, despite the fact that the air waves are a public resource. And let me restate that again. Despite the fact that the airwaves belong to the people of the United States, the Broadcasting Industry Association has spent millions of dollars lobbying against legislation to regulate political ads. If we add up the money that was spent lobbying for the broadcasting industry from 1996 to 1999, the total is well over $111 million. In the past few years, I have personally encountered the power of the broadcasting lobby. Throughout the 1990s I lobbied for a bill called Fairness in Political Advertising which would have required stations to offer modest blocks of free television time to candidates. However, the broadcasting industry spent $11 million to defeat that one bill. The broadcasting industry has successfully blocked reform by spending vast amounts of money to protect its interest. I find it extremely ironic that this body would consider an amendment to protect this special interest group as we work to limit the influence of special interest money in our political process. If we are really serious about campaign finance reform we must preclude this provision. Please join me in supporting the lowest unit charge provision within Shays-Meehan, which passed the Senate by over two to one and obviously is realized by the Senate to be an integral part of campaign finance reform. This part of this legislation is a simple way to close the loophole in existing law that has never worked, never worked in the way it was designed. By reducing the greatest single expense of campaigns, we can decrease the need for candidates to raise outrageous amounts of money, and this is an excellent way for us to improve political discourse in the electoral process and to balance the playing field. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is a debate that has gone on one way or another here in the House since the early 1970s. It was considered a great reform in 1970 that we would try to do something about controlling television time. I even remember there was a bill way back in the dark days by Congressman Udall when he was here. Congressman Udall did not believe if you owned a major television station in a media market that you should also own the newspapers and all the radio stations, and Congress agreed with him. It was really quite an astonishing thing. We will never see the like of that again, because I think we have gotten to the point now where, at least in my media market, there is not a homegrown station there. They are all bought out by conglomerates back and forth, and several have one room where large machines spill out talk radio all day long, call-in shows. At any rate, that is media in America today. As my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), pointed out, almost every civilized country in the world understands it is an important thing for democracy, not to help candidates out, but for democracy, to hear two sides of an issue. We have not been able to do that in the United States over the media since 1986 when it was taken away. We are on the cusp of history here, and I want to urge my colleagues not to take a chance on losing this bill by annoying the Senate, who passed this 2 to 1. Please vote ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), one of our brightest and most articulate Members and my colleague from New York. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)