Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have to allow States, as we always have, to have a voice in protecting their ecosystems and economies. As long as we conform to the Federal law, we have always been able in States to enhance them. But if we want to really truly solve this threat of invasive species in our waters, and I personally believe it is quite serious because both in my time in the State legislature and the Federal legislature, that was certainly pointed out to me. I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Slaughter amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I rise today to commemorate October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year, we have good reason to celebrate. Thanks to important changes to the law in the last 5 years, it has never been easier to receive the valuable preventative care that is vital to preventing and treating breast cancer. Thanks to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a mammogram is now one of the free annual preventive services covered by Medicare. Already 4 million women have taken advantage of that benefit this year. For Medicare beneficiaries, a free Annual Wellness Visit means that you can discuss your personal risk for breast cancer with your doctor, and receive free preventative screening based upon the decision you and your doctor make together. In addition, more and more insurance plans are providing free screening services of their own. Finally, genetic testing for risk of breast cancer is available, with the legal guarantee that such testing will not result in discrimination against a woman. I fought for 13 years to pass the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) so that anyone could choose to find out their genetic disposition for illness, without fear of discrimination. Since GINA became law, no health insurer can raise an individual's rates and no employer can make hiring or firing decisions based on genetic information. Unfortunately, even though a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every two minutes in the United States, screening rates for this dangerous disease are declining. A recent study found that out of 1.5 million women over the age of 40 with health insurance, less than half had received the recommended annual screening. As we celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it's important that all women know that affordable screening options are available. Screening tests can find breast cancer early, when it is most treatable. They are the best way to lower the risk of dying from breast cancer. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer caught early is 98 percent, compared to 23 percent when it is not. I encourage women to take care of themselves in every possible way, and to make a renewed commitment to following the recommended screening guidelines for breast cancer. Together, we can take the important steps necessary to win the fight against breast cancer.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It is unacceptable that today, in this country, three women and one man will die at the hands of an intimate partner. One in four women will experience some sort of domestic violence in her lifetime. Fifteen and a half million children will witness domestic violence this year. In the face of such overwhelming statistics, it is in our moral fabric as a nation that we act to protect victims of domestic violence in our country. I am very proud of the progress we have made as a country since the Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994. VAWA was an historic step forward in our nation's response to sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and other forms of violence against women. Thanks to programs established by VAWA to respond to the needs of women who had been or could be victimized by violence, women are safer, perpetrators are held accountable, and society is less tolerant of violence against women. Over 60,000 victims of domestic violence receive services every day. VAWA-funded programs have unquestionably improved the national response to domestic violence. Since VAWA was first passed in 1994: More victims are coming forward and receiving lifesaving services to help them move from crisis to stability. There has been as much as a 51% increase in reporting by women and a 37% increase in reporting by men. The number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 34% for women and 57% for men and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased 53%. States have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Staying at a shelter or working with a domestic violence advocate significantly reduces the likelihood that a victim will be abused again and improves the victim's quality of life. VAWA not only saves lives, it also saves money. In its first six years alone, VAWA saved taxpayers at least $14.8 billion in net averted social costs. A recent study found that civil protection orders saved one state (Kentucky) on average $85 million in a single year. We have come so far. But we must keep going. Reauthorizations of VAWA have addressed the unique needs of battered immigrants, sexual assault survivors, victims of dating violence, youth, elders, Indian women, individuals with disabilities, and child witnesses of violence. Now, VAWA needs to be reauthorized and updated again to better respond to the needs of women seeking health care treatment from domestic violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), intimate partner violence costs the health care system over $8.3 billion annually. Approximately 37% of women seeking injury-related treatment in hospital emergency rooms were there because of injuries inflicted by a current or former spouse or partner. VAWA has begun to address this issue--in the past two years, over 3,000 providers from 100 clinical sites serving over 175,000 women have received training through VAWA to integrate assessment for abuse into health care settings. However, more can be done. These routine assessments need to be expanded so that providers no longer discharge a woman with only the presenting injuries being treated, leaving the underlying cause of those injuries unaddressed. It is also vital that we focus on researching the most effective interventions to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault, and improve the safety and health of individuals who are victimized. We must understand what makes health care interventions effective, what the factors are that increase resiliency for children exposed to violence and individuals who have lifetime exposure to violence and abuse; and which interventions work best within community health centers and adolescent health settings. When it comes to domestic violence, it is literally an issue of life or death. Thanks to strong action by past sessions of Congress, we have helped reduce the prevalence of domestic violence across the United States. Some may say the progress we have made over the years is ``good enough.'' However, ``good enough'' is neither ``good'' nor ``enough.'' Currently, girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 are experiencing the highest rate of intimate partner violence, and one in three teens endure some kind of abuse in their romantic relationships. We cannot let our children and young adults face a life of domestic violence. By strengthening federal laws like VAWA, we can continue to help victims of domestic violence and do all that we can to reduce the prevalence of domestic violence in the United States.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today's bill continues an effort started by the Republican majority earlier this year, an effort to give away valuable American resources to foreign companies. Today the majority is proposing to take sacred land from Native American tribes and give it away to foreign corporations, one of which is partly owned by the Chinese Government. I stand here today in fierce opposition to this attempted fire sale of American resources that is being conducted under the guise of job creation. Today's bill is not written for the American worker. It was written for foreign mining giants that hope to profit from our generosity. These firms are hoping that this Congress will be charitable enough to give away millions of tons of copper to foreign companies that have no responsibility to create American jobs. Indeed, one of those companies is a leader in robotics and say that they can control a mine from 600 miles away. The likelihood that they plan to create a number of jobs does not hold together. Copper is one of the most scarce resources on the globe, and yet the majority is proposing to give this asset away. Let me say that again-- give this asset away. Under this bill, the United States receives no royalties from these foreign companies for any copper found in our soil. Furthermore, today's bill is not the solution to our jobs crisis. The proposed legislation gives federally protected land to companies that specialize in replacing miners with robots that do the same job. The majority hopes this will create jobs at some unnamed point in the future. But in addition to this approach being naive, the majority could be doing more to create jobs than simply relying on hope. The truth is that we could be standing here today actually doing job creation. We could be voting to put money directly into the hands of firefighters, police officers, and teachers. We could be investing in new roads, railroads, and schools and creating thousands of jobs for construction workers across our country. But once again, the majority seems to believe that their job is to help foreign corporations grow their bottom line. It is not. Giving away our natural resources to foreign companies will do nothing but leave American workers in the dust and we much poorer. I strongly oppose today's proposed legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation. More than ever, we need to take tangible action to create jobs, not sell our national interests to the highest foreign bidder. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, in the last year, while 14 million Americans struggle to find work, Congressional Republicans have whipped themselves into a hysteria--not about job creation, but about further restricting a woman's freedom to access safe and legal reproductive healthcare. Their legislative proposals are devastating policies that threaten to take away freedoms of all American women. The bill proposed today, H.R. 358, is the most brazen attempt by Congressional Republicans to destroy women's ability to receive private access to abortion services. Let us be clear. The bill today is one of the biggest invasions into the private lives of Americans that our nation has ever seen. With this bill, the Majority is reaching far beyond today's current laws and inserting itself into the most private and often heartrending decisions that women must sometimes make. Contrary to the Rules of the House, today's bill cites no provision of the Constitution, nor any amendment to the Constitution. None at all. Throughout the hearing process, including hearings within the Rules Committee upon which I sit, the bill's sponsor and supporters have failed to effectively answer the Constitutional authority under which we are considering this bill. One aspect of the bill is particularly illustrative of the extreme government intrusion this bill authorizes within its text. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, any hospital that participates in Medicare must fulfill three basic obligations designed to save lives. There is absolutely no exception to these basic rules. H.R. 358 would carve out a single exception to EMTALA. Under this legislation, a hospital would be able to invoke a ``conscience clause'' to turn away any pregnant woman who came to an emergency room seeking medical assistance. If this draconian provision were to become law, a woman could bleed to death in a hospital without being treated. This provision is not only a direct attack on women, it is immoral in its intent. Indeed, religious organizations such as the Catholic Health Association has explicitly told Congress that the current version of the law, strengthened under the Affordable Care Act, is perfectly fine, and that they oppose this provision of the bill. I stand in firm opposition to H.R. 358 and the continued assault from Congressional Republicans on women's freedoms. May the annals of history accurately reflect the misguided priorities and immoral agenda of the Majority, and may history accurately judge the failed leadership that has been provided by the Majority during the 112th Congress.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, and 800. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 792, 793, 800.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote numbers 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall vote numbers 780, 784, and 785. I would have voted ``no'' on Rollcall vote numbers 781, 782, 783. H.R. 3078, Motion to Recommit, No. 780, ``aye.'' H.R. 3078, Final Passage, No. 781, ``no.'' H.R. 3079, Final Passage, No. 782, ``no.'' H.R. 3089, Final Passage, No. 783, ``no.'' H.R. 2832, Motion to Concur, No. 784, ``aye.'' H.R. 2433, Motion to Suspend Rules, Pass, No. 785, ``aye.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, and 791. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 787, 788, and 790. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 786, 789, and 791. Bill, question, rollcall vote number, vote: H. Res. 430, Final Passage, 786, no; H.R. 2250, Cohen Amendment No. 22, 787, aye; H.R. 358, Motion to Recommit, 788, aye; H.R. 358, Final Passage, 789, no; H.R. 2250, Motion to Recommit, 790, aye; H.R. 2250, Final Passage, 791, no.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I cannot state strongly enough I am vigorously opposed to the three free trade bills that we are considering today. On behalf of the businesses and workers of western New York, I implore my colleagues to vote against today's free trade but not fair trade bills and put an end to the era of giveaway trade. None of the free trade bills we voted on in the last 20 years, including these bills today, were designed to protect American manufacturing and American jobs. They were designed to protect multinational corporations operating in the towers of New York, London, and Shanghai. These companies could care less where their goods are made as long as we allow them to sell them all over the world. As American legislators, we have different responsibilities. We must care where goods are made. We must do everything we can to ensure they are made in the U.S.A. I think many people would be shocked to know that there is little in the current trade agreement to prevent our own trading partners from developing new regulations that we have done all these years making it harder for us to sell our goods in their countries. Using nontariff barriers, they could place a dozen arbitrary restrictions on American- made cars, and they do in order to stop Chevy, Ford, and GM from being sold in South Korea. Do you know how many car dealers sell American cars in Korea? Twenty-six. I imagine most major cities in the United States have 26 car dealers who sell Korean cars in their city alone. There's something wrong with that picture. This is not free-flowing trade. We are restricted, but under these proposed free trade agreements, we can't do a thing to make sure that our companies are treated fairly. And they call it a good deal. Currently, nontariff barriers are playing a vital role in preventing U.S.-made cars from being sold in Japan. According to the American Auto Council, for every one car that the U.S. exports to Japan, Japan exports at least 180 vehicles to the United States. That's 1 to 180. U.S. auto exports to Japan were limited to 8,000 cars last year. That's all we could sell in all of Japan. The USTR says, A variety of nontariff barriers have traditionally impeded access to Japan's automobile and automotive parts market. Overall sales of U.S.-made vehicles remain low, which is a serious concern. But despite that, what they think with that hand, the government's left hand, the government's right hand is going to sign more trade bills that do exactly the same thing. It is an action, as far as I'm concerned, that defies common sense. Instead of wasting our time voting for a bad trade bill, I have introduced a bill that will legally ensure a fair playing field for American manufacturers. It's H.R. 1749. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require both the U.S. Government to consider tariff and non- tariff barriers when negotiating a trade agreement with another country and not reduce our tariffs until that has been done. This approach would guarantee that American manufacturers have the same opportunity as foreign competition to sell their goods around the world.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If a foreign country is caught trying to stop the sale of American-made goods, we have a ``snap-back'' provision which will stop the free trade agreement. It's a no-nonsense approach. It is bipartisan in the House. It has been endorsed by Corning; Hickey-Freeman; Hart Schaffner Marx; Globe Specialty Metals; American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition; the AFL-CIO; the United Steelworkers; and the Auto Workers, even though they are the only union that will benefit somewhat by the Korean pact. Congress needs to wake up, and we need to make countries like China and Germany see who's going to dominate the green manufacturing for generations to come. We have just about lost that great thing we pioneered here. Over and over again we have waited and watched. And the most recent ones that trouble me so much is General Electric giving away the intellectual property on airplane engines to China and GM forced to give over the technology of the Volt to be able to sell there. Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We're not going to maintain a superpower status as long as all we can do is give each other haircuts and serve each other dinner. We've got to make things here at home so that our businesses can finally benefit by some fair trade.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 745, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am expecting another speaker who is not yet on the floor. My speaker has arrived, Mr. Crowley of New York, and I will yield him 3 minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 defeat the previous question, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my speech today will be very much like my speech yesterday, but then so is the bill. Yesterday the House on both sides of the aisle defeated the majority's first attempt to pass a continuing resolution. And here we are 24 hours later with the very same bill. Let me repeat, the bill we're debating today is barely changed from the one that was defeated yesterday. The bill still contains unacceptable cuts to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential disaster relief. Homes have been destroyed. Roads have collapsed, and local economies have been disrupted by a seemingly endless stream of hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, and extreme weather that has crisscrossed our land. Our moral compass makes it very clear. We know what we need to do. We must come to the aid of our fellow Americans who need our help. The problems they are facing are monumental, and quite simply, no one can recover from such natural disasters on their own. They need our help. Yet the majority's efforts to hold disaster relief hostage to unacceptable cuts is as unwise today as it was 24 hours ago. As I said yesterday, when it comes to spending billions of dollars on two wars that are bankrupting us, the majority's concern for spending is nowhere to be found. Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion as emergency spending on infrastructure in Afghanistan, and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of these $3.4 billion was offset, but were paid for by the same taxpayers that are being denied taxpayer money now. While we send billions of dollars to Iraq, the Iraqi government has begun building. They announced today a high-speed rail system to connect Basra to Baghdad. That's the same week that the majority in this House took all of the high-speed rail away from the United States. And so we will be paying for 280 miles in Iraq, but we can't pay for it from Buffalo to Albany. When it comes to Americans in need, when it comes to helping women, children, and families whose homes have been washed away, the majority has decided they just can't help unless they get to take the money from a program that has created 39,000 jobs and is poised to create 60,000 more. The bill was wrong yesterday, and it's wrong today. Let me just give you some information from, I believe, The New York Times. The headline says, ``Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States.'' Senator McConnell asked for $235 million for an electric vehicle plant in Kentucky; Representative Lamar Smith asked for stimulus money for a solar plant in Texas; Congressman Fred Upton wanted five clean energy projects in Michigan; Representative Cliff Stearns asked for a lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in Florida. These requests for funding came from the very same program that has been discussed being cut these last 2 days. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand by your beliefs. If you thought the bill was wrong yesterday, there is no reason to think the bill is better today; virtually nothing has changed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this flawed bill. [From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2011] Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States (By Eric Lipton) Washington.--On the Senate floor and the television airwaves, Senator Mitch McConnell has lambasted the Obama administration over what he has described as its failed efforts to stimulate new jobs through clean-energy projects backed with billions of dollars in federal loans or other assistance. But Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, is one of several prominent Republicans who have worked to steer federal money to clean- energy projects in their home states, Energy Department documents show. Mr. McConnell made two personal appeals in 2009, asking Energy Secretary Steven Chu to approve as much as $235 million in federal loans for a plant to build electric vehicles in Franklin, Ky. ``I hope you will realize the importance of such job creation to Kentucky,'' Mr. McConnell said in a July 2009 memo supporting an application from Zap Motor Manufacturing. Federal lobbying disclosure records show that Mr. McConnell's support for the project came after Zap Motor hired a Kentucky-based lobbyist, Robert Babbage, who has been a frequent contributor to Mr. McConnell's campaigns and boasts on his own Internet site about his close ties to Mr. McConnell. Mr. Babbage declined to comment on the project. Gary Dodd, chief executive of Zap Motor, said the intervention by Mr. McConnell came after the company asked him to push the Energy Department to approve the loan. Mr. McConnell's office, in a statement, defended his actions, saying, ``There was no effort to push the administration to short-circuit its due diligence simply to plan a ribbon-cutting.'' Mr. McConnell's high-level advocacy took place despite early struggles for the project, including the financial collapse in 2008 of its first Kentucky business partner, Integrity Manufacturing. Mr. McConnell made no mention of these stumbles as he pushed for federal money, simply saying Zap Motor might create as many as 4,000 jobs in his state. Recently, he has joined with other Republicans in criticizing a March 2009 decision by the Obama administration to provide a $535 million government-backed loan to a California solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra, which recently filed for bankruptcy and is now the subject of inquiries by the F.B.I. and Congress. ``The White House fast-tracked a half-billion-dollar loan to a politically connected energy firm,'' Mr. McConnell said Thursday in remarks on the Senate floor. ``This place was supposed to be the poster child of how the original stimulus would create jobs.'' Another Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, recently asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to appoint an outside investigator to determine how the Department of Energy distributes clean-energy money. But in 2009, Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Chu asking him to approve loan guarantees from stimulus money for a Texas project proposed by Tessera Solar, documents show. Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and another critic of the Energy Department program, signed letters along with other members of the Michigan delegation in 2009 and 2010, pushing at least five clean-energy projects in his state, including a $207 million loan request from EcoMotors International. And Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, praised the opening last year of a lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in his state, which relied upon an Energy Department grant. Mr. Smith, along with the others, defended their actions, saying lawmakers can be critical of the Energy Department programs while still seeking money. ``I wanted to support Texas companies in their applications for grants,'' Mr. Smith said in a statement. ``It is the responsibility of the Obama administration to carry out the necessary financial reviews of these proposals.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This combines a speech he would have made yesterday with one he's going to do this evening.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to respond to the General Motors-China issue. Earlier this week, The New York Times had a wonderful article in the business section that the Chinese were subsidizing electric cars to the tune of $19,000 which all of us know is against every trade law the world has ever seen. But they were going to sell the Volt, and GM announced--they actually told them that in order to sell the Volt at all in China they had to give over all of their technology and all the information they had on how to build that car. I thought they weren't going to do it, but I also read yesterday that now they've got a brand- new Chinese partner, and they're giving them all the technology. I've got some legislation to bring into that, Mr. Speaker. I think it's outrageous that that's what's happening to American manufacturers. I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan who knows a thing about General Motors, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, let me respond to my friend from Georgia. Don't forget that 48 on your side voted against it. I don't know what agreement you had with them. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.