Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. I am at a loss to explain why we are once again preparing to circumvent the rules of this body and cram a controversial budget conference down the throats of our colleagues. What aversion does the leadership have to regular order? Last week's paper caper in the midnight hour was a prime illustration of the adage ``haste makes waste.'' In their haste to cover up the details of a flawed budget blueprint, the leadership wasted hour upon hour of time slated for the people's business. Today's rule is more of the same. Martial law is an extremely heavy- handed process, even for this leadership. Under the rules of the House, a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on the same day the Committee on Rules reports it. But the martial law procedures before us allow a rule to be considered on the same day as it is reported rather with a majority, rather than a two-thirds vote. This rule we are considering would waive the 1-day layover requirement. It would also kick off a chain reaction whereby this body considers several procedural votes in an elaborate game to recommit last week's ill-fated budget conference report and bring up a revised version for consideration. Given what we have learned about the forthcoming conference bill on the budget, we should not be surprised. I suspect that the longer the measure is exposed to the light of day, the more likely it will shrivel up and die. I would note for the record that no Democrats had input on the conference report. No Democrats were invited to participate in writing this agreement, nor were any Democrats given any information regarding the document that will be the budget guideline for this Nation. The word in the caucus room is that the Budget chairman refused to return the phone calls of our ranking member. This is a far cry from changing the tone in Washington that the current leadership prides itself on. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand that even as we speak, the Senate is rewriting this conference report which we are supposed to vote on today and that there is another breakdown going on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say again that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) played no role whatever in this budget and was unable to even get his phone calls returned, and I regret that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

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 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 thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to recommit this flawed document. I urge the leadership to use this opportunity to craft a real budget with input from both Republicans and Democrats. The infamous two missing pages are hardly the only flaws in this so- called agreement. Other pages are missing as well. For instance, waiting in the wings of this Congress are a number of popular tax cuts, including between $85 billion and $115 billion in business tax breaks. Billions more in tax cuts, with the elimination of the estate tax for the Nation's wealthiest citizens, and the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty tax this Congress, are moving through the legislative process. An honest budget would have included these provisions. The House leadership knows full well that at the end of this tax cut frenzy we will surpass the administration's initial proposal of $1.8 trillion. Also missing are the President's big-ticket items. For starters, we seem to be missing the page that factors in the likely cost of a missile defense system. Nobody knows if it will work, and nobody knows how much it will cost; but estimates run up to $300 billion. We also seem to be missing the page that explains how we pay for the conventional defense buildup being planned by the administration at a cost of $250 billion over the next decade. How is this consistent with a budget that makes no room for increases in defense spending beyond those already proposed by the Clinton administration? Also, I have yet to find the page that explains how we will maintain government services in the face of a growing population while increasing spending no faster than inflation. Perhaps the leadership can explain what unspecified drastic cuts to the tune of $400 billion they have planned and how will these cuts not impact Social Security and Medicare. I urge the leadership to turn over all missing pages and expose these numbers; and, moreover, I would caution my colleagues on the conference committee against signing their name to a document that is patently and shamelessly dishonest in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. H.R. 10 deserves full and open debate, and an open rule would have ensured that no one would have been shut out of the process. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) would have been able to offer her amendment to make the benefits of the underlying bill available to employees of small businesses; and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) would have been able to offer her amendment to make Federal employees eligible to participate in the benefits of the underlying bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support expanding opportunities for working Americans to save for their retirement, which are the underlying goals for H.R. 10. Congress must ensure that no segment of our workforce is excluded from the opportunity to financially improve their retirement years. The pressure to save adequately for retirement affects all working Americans. H.R. 10 includes a number of provisions which improve current protections for workers and retirees. It encourages rollovers of pension plans when workers switch employment, and eliminates compensation caps that unfairly affect pension benefits of rank-and- file workers. Specifically, H.R. 10 increases the annual IRA contributions from $2,000 to $5,000. It increases the amount that individuals can contribute to 401(k) plans from $10,000 up to $15,000. Also, it allows taxpayers age 50 and above to contribute an additional $5,000 to an IRA. The bill allows workers to become vested and eligible for employer-matching contributions in 3 years rather than 5. Currently, more people are joining the workforce than are receiving pension coverage. Only half of the workforce is covered by a pension plan. And worse, there is reason to believe that it will not provide them with an adequate level of supplemental income in retirement. Although there is insufficient data to measure contributions and benefits, data from the Federal Reserve shows pension plan contributions declining by 50 percent in recent years. The underlying bill could be strengthened to ensure opportunities for those low- and moderate-income workers with few or no opportunities to save. We must continue to work together to improve this aspect of the bill. Statistics confirm that low-income workers are far less likely to participate in an employment-based retirement saving plan than workers with higher incomes, even when the plan is available to them. Only 29 percent of full-time workers with earnings below $20,000 annually are covered by pensions. On the other hand, 76 percent of those earning above $60,000 annually have coverage. During consideration of the underlying bill, my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) will offer a substitute which incorporates the text of H.R. 10, as well as provisions to encourage the participation of low-income workers. Specifically, the substitute provides a refundable credit for low- and middle-income workers who save for their retirement; and it makes small business employees eligible to claim a tax credit for establishing a qualified pension plan. That is most important. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important improvements to the bill. Mr. Speaker, 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 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 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 gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule that I will not actively oppose, but H.R. 503, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, deserves full and open debate. A truly open rule would have insured that no one was shut out of the process. But everyone in the Chamber understands what is going on today. The majority did not bring this bill to the floor to protect pregnant women. The majority brought the measure to the floor today to launch its battle to end a woman's right to choose in the 107th Congress. But, more specifically, the majority is responding to the call of the National Right to Life Committee and their goal of achieving legal status and protections for a fetus. If passed, this bill would mark the first time that our Federal laws would recognize the fetus in early stages of gestational development as a person, a notion that the Supreme Court considered but rejected. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 represents an effort to endow a fetus with rights, such as recognition as a crime victim, and to thus erode the fundamental premise of Roe v. Wade. Aside from this general concern, there is a real threat that the bill will spur the antichoice movement to use the legislation as a building block to undermine a woman's right of reproductive freedom. The threat to Roe v. Wade could not be more clear. In Roe, the Court recognized a woman's right to have an abortion as a privacy right protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of whether a fetus is a person, the Court noted that the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, and concluded that ``person,'' as used in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn. The supporters of H.R. 503 would suggest that they are advancing the bill in an effort to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is, at best, an awkward and, at worst, a dangerous effort. If the sponsors of H.R. 503 were truly concerned with the problem of violence against women, they would have supported full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. The amounts appropriated in the 2001 budget are more than $200 million short of the authorization levels. Mr. Speaker, a far more effective legislative alternative is available, which discourages crimes against pregnant women without undermining Roe v. Wade. Such an alternative is embodied in the Lofgren-Conyers substitute which defines the crime to be against the pregnant woman, whereas H.R. 503 makes the crime against the fetus. This distinction is a critical one because the substitute avoids the issue of ``fetal rights'' and ``fetal personhood'' that put the bill at odds with the principles of Roe v. Wade, medical science and common sense. Instead, the Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes it as the woman who suffers the injury when an assault causes harm to her fetus or causes her to lose the pregnancy. The substitute also acknowledges the connection between the woman and her fetus without distinguishing the rights of one from the other. That is a very important point. The substitute, therefore, accomplishes the stated goals of H.R. 503, deterring violent acts against pregnant women that cause injury to their fetuses or termination of a pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the majority's goal of averting violence against women in their developing pregnancies is secondary to the goal of undermining the reproductive rights of women. Rather than seeking to score points in the abortion debate, we invite the majority to join us in crafting legislation that protects women and mothers from violence that threatens all those who are under their care. I would note that H.R. 503 is unanimously opposed by groups concerned about ending domestic violence and protecting a woman's right to choose, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the People for the American Way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to take a moment to give the penalties from the Lofgren substitute, which are even stronger than those of the underlying bill. The Lofgren-Conyers substitute includes the following elements: One, it creates a separate criminal Federal offense for harm to a pregnant woman, which protects the legal status of a woman. Two, it recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of the crime that causes termination of the pregnancy. Three, it includes exactly the same sentences for the offenses as does the base bill, providing a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to the woman's pregnancy, and a maximum of life sentence for termination of a woman's pregnancy, and requires a conviction for the underlying predicate offense, requiring an intent to commit the predicate offense be proven. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is the first volley this term by the anti- choice legislators to restrict a woman's right to choose. This bill would add to the Federal criminal code a separate new offense to punish individuals who injure or cause the death of a child which is in utero, regardless of the stage of development. It sounds innocuous enough, but in essence it is a sham. No one would argue that an attack on a pregnant woman that results in a miscarriage or an injury is not a tragedy. As one of the most vocal leaders in Congress on behalf of women and families, I have spoken on this House floor numerous times to end violence against women and domestic violence of all sorts. But that is not what we are talking about here today. H.R. 503 eliminates the mother from the picture. She is of no concern. Instead, it affords an embryo the legal status that should be hers as a human being. Precisely the goal that the authors of H.R. 503 and the National Right to Life Committee seek to achieve is reaching this status. The supporters candidly admit that their purpose is to recognize the existence of a separate legal person, separate from its mother, before it is born. And supporters rejected a number of alternative tougher ways to address violence against the pregnant woman, each time citing the reason being that the alternative did not recognize embryonic personage. Do not be fooled. This is an anti-choice bill disguised as a crime bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute which will provide the same penalties but does not separate the fetus from its mother. Last Friday, the press reported that President Bush does not intend to launch a frontal attack on Roe v. Wade or let his Presidency become mired in this controversy. If that is true, then we hope that we will not see more of these bills. In the meantime, please vote for the Lofgren substitute.