Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, from renewing unemployment insurance for more than 1.6 million Americans to growing our economy and rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that will help the American people. So I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule so that we can finally get to work, I hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our Nation, not wasting more time with another attack on women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on the bill written by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to extend emergency unemployment benefits, paid for with the savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today or tomorrow. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, the only thing I really need to say, other than the absolute requirements here, is that we have had a great demonstration in this rule debate on what is going on here. H.R. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee of 12 men and then voted on by the main committee, composed mostly of men, who carried the debate, was brought here today; and yet, with the exception of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came to speak on this bill. On our side, we had diversity. We had women. We had men getting up and talking about actually complying with the Constitution. And on the other side, we had, once again, men telling women what they are allowed to do. We are so far past that. When we finally got the right to vote, we said, Let's put all this behind us, certainly in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Can't you understand the difference here in the people's House, that the people represent the diversity of the faces of America, and all the men over there who seem to have devoted their lives to making sure that women do what they expect them to do and what they are told to do and trying to pass laws to require that. I think it was one of the most telling debates that I have ever seen, and I hope that it will not go unnoticed by the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 22 and 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 22 and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 23. Personal Explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least-productive Congress in history. And, frankly, I think they are a little bit proud of that. The inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process the majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year. At the beginning of the second session of the 113th Congress, the majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. Furthermore, during the first congressional session, the majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the minority and diminish the chance of any compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. That cuts out, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the people in the United States of America who voted for Democrats. During 2013, the majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day. Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern. Every Member of this Chamber was sent here with a simple duty--to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. But, by closing down the legislative process, the majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from being able to do just that. Collectively, we members of the minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us is entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills, and having a full and open debate? The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee, we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed and somewhat disgusted at the proposed rule the Rules Committee has carried to the floor today. Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two of those bills are considered under closed rules, which are not amendable, not discussable, and one is considered under a structured rule. And that one came up 2 days ago. It has had no committee action whatsoever. The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA, the agency that protects our health, our rivers, our air, and our land. At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services and demands that health care navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis. It is simply designed to slow up the work of signing up Americans for the health care that they want and deserve. It is very clear this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people but is a tactic to keep health care navigators from doing their work. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to the millions of Americans struggling to find work. And without unemployment insurance, the economy is suffering every single day. Just before we left for Christmas, the last day we were here, to end the debate on the rule of the budget, we had a vote that we could have done to extend the unemployment during the rules debate on the floor. That was under the previous question. The vote failed despite the fact that every Democrat and a Republican voted for it. By the way, this bill was paid for. It was already taken care of by excess payments that we pay in agriculture subsidies. It was an extension for 3 months, but that was not good enough. So today, you are going to have another chance to do just that, to extend the unemployment insurance, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do it. If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House. Today, more than 1.3 million Americans and their families have lost access to unemployment insurance. Soon, it will be over 2 million and, by probably the end of March or May, 5 million. For so many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and buy food during these cold winter days. We have to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to get by through no fault of their own, because, you remember, in order to be eligible for unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are looking for work. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question when it comes up so we can have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally do something in this House and through this Rules Committee that will benefit Americans and make our constituents know that we count for something. Mr. Speaker, The Majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least productive Congress in history. This inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process that the Majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year. At the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 113th Congress, the Majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order--from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House Floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House Floor for an up or down vote. Furthermore, during the first Congressional session, the Majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the Minority and diminish the chance for compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House Floor. During 2013, the Majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day! Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern. Every member of this chamber was sent here with a simple duty: to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. Yet by closing down the legislative process, the Majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from doing just that. Collectively, we members of the Minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us has been entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the Majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills and having a full and open debate? The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so that every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed at the proposed rule that the Majority in the Rules Committee has carried to the Floor today. Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two bills will be considered under closed rules and one will be considered under a structured rule. The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA--the agency that protects our health, our rivers and our land. At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services, and demands that healthcare navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis. It is clear that this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people, but a tactic to keep healthcare navigators from providing millions of Americans with access to healthcare. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are still struggling to find work. Just before we left for Christmas, we had a vote on extending unemployment during a rules debate on the floor. That vote failed, despite the fact that every Democrat voted for it. As a result, more than 1.3 million Americans lost unemployment insurance on December 28th. Today, we will give this chamber another chance to extend unemployment insurance--and I strongly urge my colleagues in doing just that. If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House. Right now, more than 1.3 million Americans have lost access to unemployment insurance in the last few weeks. For many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and stay warm during these cold winter days. We must stand up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by in these tough economic times. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally provide for the millions of Americans in need.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the legislation before us today gives us a chance to begin to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration; but it is not enough, as my colleague has stated. Our Nation can--and should--dare to once again dream big. We are a Nation that built one of the largest interstate highway systems in the world, which is presently crumbling; launched the Internet; pioneered the creation of GPS; and created the largest middle class on Earth through a fair and balanced Tax Code that asked everyone, including the wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations, to pay their fair share. We are home to public institutions like the National Institutes of Health, which have helped to find the cures for countless diseases and conditions and saved millions of lives. Great achievements like these are only behind us if we so choose. I strongly believe that we can rebuild our crumbling runways, our roads and rails, restore our middle class, and invest in the breakthroughs that will once again make us the envy of the world. But in order to do so, we have to make responsible fiscal choices that are a reflection of our values. That means restoring smart and targeted funding to programs and agencies that drive our country forward, asking the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share--not more than that, but their fair share--and protecting the programs that serve hardworking Americans at times when they need help the most. To that end, it is shameful that the legislation before us does not extend unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million Americans who are scheduled to lose them within a matter of weeks--3 days after Christmas, actually. In the United States of America, we believe in providing a hand up, not a kick while you are down. Unemployment insurance is that hand up. Studies have shown that unemployment insurance allows jobseekers to purchase necessities such as groceries and gas without accruing further debt. In so doing, it helps to increase economic activity while easing the financial burden of unemployed Americans and making it easier, not harder, for them--as we are--to find a new job. That is why my Democratic colleagues, Representative Levin, Representative Van Hollen, and Representative Barbara Lee, introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to extend the unemployment insurance for an additional 3 months. This bill was paid for. I want to make that perfectly clear. It would not have cost an extra dime. Inexcusably, the majority rejected my colleagues' amendment, despite inserting language to fix Medicare payments to doctors over the coming year, which is certainly important. Fixing the Medicare payments to doctors is a worthy and important goal, but it is certainly troubling-- and should be to all of us--that we are unwilling at the same time to ignore the needs of the unemployed. The majority's refusal to extend a helping hand to jobless Americans stands in stark contrast to the defense of tax loopholes for big corporations and powerful special interests. For far too long, our Nation has allowed wealthy individuals and powerful corporations to hide billions of dollars in offshore bank accounts and create tax loopholes instead of paying their fair share. Indeed, some corporations in America pay no taxes at all. It is unfortunate that not a single one of the loopholes is addressed in the bill that is before us today to help us reduce the national debt. Despite these shortcomings, today's legislation does take an important first step toward easing the painful budget cuts contained in sequestration. It has been an unmitigated disaster that has hurt our economy and our country, and there is an urgent need to avert the next round of budget cuts that are scheduled to take effect. And I am grateful for that. In a study conducted earlier this year by the Association of American Universities, 81 percent of the respondents declared that sequestration cuts had immediate and detrimental effects on research activities. Seventy percent of the respondents cited delays in research projects, and 58 percent of respondents stated that sequestration led to reductions in staff, students, and fellows through attrition and layoffs. A recent study showed that sequestration and other budget cuts have resulted in an actual Institutes of Health budget far too low to support our biomedical research community. In addition to that point, Mr. Speaker, let me say that during the government shutdown, which cost the economy $24 billion and was useless, of the five Nobel laureates employed by the United States of America, only one was declared essential. Four Nobel laureates were said to be nonessential. That blows the mind, doesn't it? These types of drastic budget cuts have profound impacts on our country. Reduced funding means that new discoveries and breakthroughs are delayed--or never realized--and that our public health knowledge is stunted for years to come. As a microbiologist, I can tell you that you cannot simply turn research off and on like a faucet, but that is exactly what we do when we arbitrarily slash the budgets with no regard for the consequences of our cuts. That is why today's legislation is an important step forward for our country. We must end the self-inflicted wound that is sequestration and get back to investing in our own well-being and the future of America. By restoring funding across our government, we will help to jump-start our economy and get back to work on the cutting-edge research and on infrastructure that will benefit the Nation in years to come. In closing, today's bill is an important step forward, but our work is not done until we add an extension of unemployment insurance to this legislative package. We will give you an opportunity to do that at the end of the rule. In so doing, we can ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for every American this holiday season. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to discuss our previous question amendment, which will allow every one of us to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether we are going to allow 1.3 million Americans to keep their unemployment benefits for 3 months, which is absolutely paid for and which does not add a nickel to the deficit. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry, Mr. Levin. All time has been allocated.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and I congratulate him for his hard work.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). This is very important.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my colleague, who is the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, on this important issue.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have to yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Woodall, if you believe anything at all that you have just said, I understand what is going on here. First, blame everything in the world on ObamaCare.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will not. To try to give people health insurance is somehow a crime in the House of Representatives, but the people we are talking about on unemployment have exhausted their unemployment. It will not be there, Mr. Woodall. They can lose their housing. They can lose their food. They may even be dispossessed out into the street. There is a meanness that is going on that is absolutely astonishing to me.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I please have my time. I didn't get to speak because he took it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to, Mr. Speaker, and I started out that way. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee ranking member, who I hope can finish my thought.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Committee on the Budget and author of the amendment we are trying to get here.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Budget Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has further speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today's proposal is a step in the right direction, but we must improve this bill before we vote on final passage. What have we learned here today? We have learned first that during the budget negotiations that it was determined that the doc fix, as we call it--doctors' payments--and unemployment insurance would not be in the scope of what they were doing and we would do that separately. Then, unbeknownst to us on our side, after agreeing to that, only the doc fix, as we call it, was put back into this bill. It was supposed to be separate, it was a part of the rule, and it would be voted on automatically when we vote for this rule today. The only thing left out was unemployment extension, and I think we know why. We heard from our colleague that he thinks there is plenty of money out there. They are not going to go without a thing. That is totally untrue. It would be a tragedy of gigantic proportions if this House turned down the extension of unemployment benefits because some Members believe it is not going to happen. It is going to happen, and it is not because we didn't try in the Rules Committee to try to explain it. There is no justification in the world for turning down a 3-month extension in the dead of winter that is paid for, that adds not a penny to anything. And there was no bipartisanship in the Rules Committee on this last night. We did our very best, but we were outnumbered considerably, 9-4. Nonetheless, we think it is important enough today to give every Member of this House a second chance, and we are going to ask everybody who wants to make sure the people in their districts who are unemployed, through no fault of their own--there has been sort of a prevailing thought that we have heard from time to time that if we don't extend unemployment insurance, we will teach them a lesson; we will teach them not to have a job. They will find out right away that is not the way to live, despite the fact, as was pointed out, 20,000 people applied for 600 jobs. That gives you some idea of what that is like. Some people have come before committees here with stacks of resumes that they have sent out as high as 2 feet with rejection notices that they have gotten. They are not there. We are going to give another chance on the previous question. I want everybody on both sides of the aisle who believes they cannot go home-- and we did have a resolution here not to go home until our work is finished--but that we will take care of our fellow Americans in need, which we hope is temporary, which again depends very much on what we do in the future. We will give you a chance if we vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. Then I will be allowed to bring up the amendment that was turned down last night to extend it for 3 months. Imagine, 3 months all paid for again. So it is really appalling to me that we can fix anything here, but we can literally let children, veterans, people who are unable to work, the disabled, and the people who have lost their jobs, that we can say to them that it doesn't matter here in the House of Representatives if you are hungry, if you are cold, if you are going to lose the place that you live, if your sustenance is taken away from you. We don't care. Maybe some church somewhere, some temple, some synagogue will take care of you. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans. 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'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.