Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the chase here. Barney Frank, our former colleague, said that many people believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. I want to know how this Congress is going to comply with what the President asked us last night: Will you give more money for child care? for daycare? Will you give more money for early education? Will you make sure that mothers are paid as much as the men they are working with and that the same jobs pay the same? Will you do something about paid sick leave? Will you help these children get to college? Absolutely not. The record has been clear on all of these issues. There is something really awful when we take up the time to please the base of some sort out there against all scientific belief and everything that we know about medicine. I wish this Congress would stop the folly. We are faced with a lot of serious problems in this country. Again, as my colleague points out, we have no ability to amend it. Nobody else can be heard on anything else. It is simply going to be voted on; the Senate may or may not ever take it up; and the President will not sign it. It is the same thing that we did over and over in the last session--kill health care. Do everything you can. Nothing is going to be signed. No bills will be made. It is a shame. I have labeled it before as ``legislative malpractice,'' and that is exactly what is going on with this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank Mr. Crowley for yielding to me. There is so much on my mind as to what I could say about him. I knew him longer than the rest of the New Yorkers. I met him in 1973. I was a member of the Democratic State committee in Rochester, New York, and I was asked by the district attorney to come over to his house and meet a man from New York City who was thinking about running for Governor; so I joined my friends and sat in the living room for about an hour, awaiting the guest from New York to get off the telephone in the kitchen and come out and talk to us. He came out. He was perfectly charming, but he didn't know upstate New York. He started by telling us: ``A lot of people are talking to me about running for Governor, and I thought it would be a good idea if I came up here to see what all of you thought.'' I left the house that night, and I said to my friend that I was driving with: ``He is really a nice guy, and he is very smart, but, boy, he needs a lot of help.'' I was really pretty lucky, I think, that I got to do that. As it turns out, Governor Carey ran for Governor at that time, and Mr. Cuomo was appointed secretary of state. He had some great ideas for upstate New York. One of them was they were going to have an upstate coordinator, which is kind of an amorphous title, but I was very blessed that he let me try that job. I had been out of the workforce. I was home. My youngest child was about 12 years old. It was back in the day when one income could bring up a family and educate them. And so trying to get back into work and to get back into all of that was pretty difficult for me. And I am not sure anybody else would have put up with me, other than Mario Cuomo, giving me every opportunity in the world to try to learn what it is we were trying to do. But, boy, did I ever teach him a few things. We had an old State car, a rattletrap. I drove him all over upstate New York, and the conversations we had would absolutely astound you. We stopped one day in one of our beautiful rural villages in upstate named Pavilion to get a cup of coffee. And a 16-year-old girl came out to wait on us. And here he was: a new person to speak to. Now, those of you who knew him know how exciting that would be. And he started in by asking her, What was the main business in Pavilion? What was the gross domestic product there? He was asking her all these questions. And all she wanted to do was get him a cup of coffee. And I felt a little sorry for her, so I said, ``He is the secretary of state.'' Unfortunately, I forgot the part to say secretary of state of New York. She went back into the kitchen, knowing this man was not Henry Kissinger, and never came back out. And as we rode around in this old red car, he would ask me about the cornfields. And I will tell you, if my agriculture people knew what a botch I made of trying to explain to him the life of the cornstalk, it was really awful. And he would say things like, How do they heat that house over there? What do you think they do? Where do they all go to school? Everything in the world interested him. He was the most extraordinary teacher that I have ever had. I just had those 2 years of showing him upstate New York. And then when he got elected lieutenant governor--I ran that upstate campaign--the State Police took over. But we still carried on all these great conversations we had. And I remember one of the policemen said once that no matter how upset Mario was, when he got off the plane and would go 10 miles or 10 rounds with Louise, they were off on a whole other subject. I learned so much from him. And I know that everybody thinks of him as a one-speech maker sort of a--but let me tell you, that was not it. The speech that he made at Notre Dame was so incredibly wonderful and so important and so instructive that everybody should read that as well. But one of my very favorites was when he made his speech about my hometown of Rochester on Lake Ontario. He described Rochester as a necklace of neighborhoods clustered around the lake. Now that is talking. And he also talked about life, that our life needed to be more than to just hope always to land on the safe squares. And we thought that was such an incredible thing to think about, that your life had to have more meaning than that. The people that we worked with at the secretary of state's office who were holdovers from the previous administration had said to me many, many times how wonderful it was for them to be able to work for such a first-rate lawyer. And believe me, he really was. He loved the country, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out. His love of his family was absolutely legendary. He was a man of deep conviction, of religious faith, who loved his family more than anything. But he also loved the great opportunity that this country had given to him. He talked so admiringly of his father and the strength that his father and mother had, coming here with literally nothing. And it was the manual labor that his father did to lift himself up and, consequently, his family to a better life, and the country. He loved New York. He loved its people. He loved its history more than anything. He loved the institution of governing. So I speak of him as somebody that maybe other people didn't get to know the way I did, but I admired him always. And I am pretty sure I would not be in elected office at all had I not had the opportunity to learn from him, the wonderful opportunity to represent our neighbors and to come down and to try to make law and to make some changes. So I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Crowley. We will not see his like again.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time, and if I could just take a minute to wish everybody a great new session. It is good to be back. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to set a new course for this Congress, though, with the record of the past Congresses, we know we have a lot of work to do. During their tenure, the majority has careened from crisis to crisis, sued the President for doing his job, brought the House to new heights of dysfunction and closed debate with the most closed rules in a single Congress in our Nation's history, chased nonexistent scandals in Benghazi and at the IRS, and, since 2011, had this House vote more than 50 times to take health care away from their own constituents. This legacy of dysfunction, of partisanship and prioritizing political games over the public policy has dealt the American people a bad hand. By governing this House in such a haphazard way, the majority has closed down the process and shut out the American people. Sadly, the majority is poised to double down on their partisanship and even reinvent the mathematics of public policy. By using what is called ``dynamic scoring'' to pretend that tax cuts pay for themselves, Republicans will require the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Taxation Committee to use math that Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser for both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, called ``smoke and mirrors.'' This new math cooks the books in favor of the majority to pretend that the tax cut bills are revenue neutral. Time and time again, the falsehoods of dynamic scoring have come to light. The first President Bush even called this tactic ``voodoo economics.'' But even so, the House Republicans want to change the rules and inject their partisan ideology into even the mathematics which underlies our Nation's public policy. Rising above partisanship, the House Democrats will propose today two measures that would do immeasurable good for the American people. First, giving average Americans the paychecks that they deserve, our commonsense legislation would deny CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions on incomes over $1 million unless their own employees get a well-deserved raise first. This would ensure that average workers share in the fruit of the Nation's productivity, not just the millionaires and the billionaires. Today, as our Tax Code stands, CEOs get a break and their workers are left out. The CEOs get the money, the deduction on taxes, and we get the bill to pay for that deduction. It is destroying the middle class. Second, Democrats will bring forward the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act, which prevents U.S. corporations from renouncing their citizenship to dodge paying their fair share of taxes. It is time to stop rewarding companies that move overseas and, instead, use those dollars to create good-paying jobs here at home and rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. By closing this loophole and ending the so-called tax inversions, we would raise an estimated $33.6 billion to invest in our roads, railways, and bridges which are falling apart all over the country. Last fall, I stood by a 100-year-old bridge in Bushnell's Basin that fell into such disrepair that firefighters stopped using it for fear the bridge could not bear the weight of the engines. It endangered the safety of the people they were expected to serve. In my home State of New York, 40 percent of the bridges have been rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which is even worse. I wonder what the number is for the United States. This is an unconscionable state of affairs. Repairing the Nation's highways and bridges is now, literally, life or death. We can do it with the Democrat proposals. We can, and we must. These are the types of bills that we hope to be bringing to the floor in this session of Congress. We will debate them and ultimately pass them. That is what Congress is about, not a legislative branch that silences half of this Nation by bypassing the committee process and bringing to Rules emergency bills that silence the Representatives of half of the people in the United States. It is my fervent hope that the new Congress will bring about an era of willingness to tackle the big problems facing our Nation, a renewed call for true bipartisanship, and a culture of enlivened debate, and I promise that our side will be a willing partner. In describing how the Bill of Rights came to be, former Supreme Court Justice, the late Harry Blackmun, said that the Founding Fathers survived a ``crucible of disagreement'' to give us a more perfect Union. Forging through that crucible is not only good for the legislative branch, but good for the Nation. Truly, it is the debate that makes us stronger, and time and time again, debate in the House has been stalled, strangling policies and solutions that could have benefited the Nation. Sadly, this is the legacy of the last Congress. I would like to insert the text of Justice Blackmun's speech into the Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been successful already about inversions.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the past does not dictate the future. We can right our path forward. We may be able to prioritize that the American people will win over politics; and, today, we have the opportunity to do that with the beginning of this, the 114th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished returning ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to respond to that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this House rules package has a number of other provisions with which we have serious concerns. Most significantly, the rules change relating to Social Security. Late last night, the Republican rules package was revised to include a major new provision that will likely force Social Security benefit cuts. The new rule would prevent the House from considering legislation to prevent a scheduled 20 percent cut to Social Security benefits for 11 million disabled workers and their families (by creating a point of order against legislation that reallocates FICA taxes between the Social Security Trust Funds, which have a current overall balance of $2.8 trillion), unless the legislation also includes Social Security benefit cuts or tax increases. Without any substantive debate and out of public view, the rule would prevent the House from even considering a mechanism endorsed by more than 50 advocacy groups and which Congress has used 11 times in the past to address shortfalls in one of the trust funds. H. Res. 5 also extends staff deposition authority to four more committees (Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Science, and Ways and Means). We are deeply concerned that these new authorities will be used to launch politically motivated attacks on the Affordable Care Act, Environmental Protection Agency actions, the implementation of Dodd-Frank financial industry reform, and IRS regulations. Democrats are disappointed that House Republicans have decided to continue their politically-motivated lawsuit against the President over implementation of the Affordable Care Act and their partisan investigations into ``Fast and Furious'' and the attack in Benghazi, Libya. Extensions of those authorities also appear in H. Res. 5. H. Res. 5's changes to the motion to instruct also concern us deeply. Under current rules, motions to instruct conferees can be offered 25 legislative days and 10 calendar days after conference committees have been appointed. H. Res. 5 lengthens these periods, so that motions to instruct would be privileged 45 calendar days and 25 legislative days after the conference is appointed. This is clearly an attempt to weaken the Minority's ability to participate in the conference committee process in the future. Changes to the authorizing language of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group have the potential to make it politically easier for the Majority to file additional lawsuits against the President, and this possibility disturbs us given the events surrounding the filing of the ACA-related lawsuit last Congress. H. Res. 5 contains a number of other provisions, some of which raise concerns and some of which appear to be innocuous. For example, small changes to the jurisdiction of certain committees, an increase in the size of the Intelligence Committee, an allowance for extra subcommittees on the Agriculture, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, and allowing the Speaker to reconvene the House at a time other than previously appointed after consultation with the Minority Leader, among others.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished returning ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he has any remaining speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legacy of the 113th Congress shows us a broken institution: broken by partisanship and recalcitrance. I urge my colleagues to change course in the 114th Congress, to encourage openness, transparency, and true bipartisanship. If we can achieve this, we will come together. If we defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the resolution to bring up the Stop Corporate Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act of 2015 to stop giving up American citizenship to avoid paying taxes. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Gentleman, Mr. Rangel, our dean of the House New York State delegation for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and bid farewell to four colleagues who have served this institution, this country, their constituents, and the Great State of New York admirably and well. From a nurse to a captain in the United States Navy, my four colleagues, Representatives Owens, Maffei, McCarthy, and Bishop, have brought diverse backgrounds to our chamber, enriched us with their insight, and stood by us through our Nation's most pressing debates. Mr. Speaker, today, the New York delegation is losing four pillars, four leaders, four friends. I have worked late into the night with each one of them on issues vital to the health of our Nation, such as stemming the tide of gun violence, ensuring an affordable college education, updating our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, and providing health care through the Affordable Care Act. While they will no longer be serving their constituents in this body, I am confident that whichever way their paths lead them, they will continue their legacies of service to their communities any way that they can. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the New York Delegation and the House as a whole in wishing Bill, Dan, Carolyn, and Tim the best of everything in the next chapter of their lives and careers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).