Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has helped create a few jobs while he has been here.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, over 200 years, the House of Representatives has seen almost everything. From the days as a young nation, to modern day America, the exchange of ideas and the debate of legislation is a rich and proud tradition that moves our country forward. Unfortunately, today's legislation abandons this proud history and marks a new low in the United States House of Representatives. As you know, the new majority started off the session with reading every section and every piece of the Constitution of the United States to show our reverence for it, but this morning that Constitution has been kicked under the couch out of sight, lest its presence in the room restrict what is attempting to be done here today. Indeed, this legislation proposes that we throw away 200 years of legislative history and upend the fundamental process of how a bill becomes law. Despite the urgent and dire issues facing our constituents, here we are, the U.S. House of Representatives, considering legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Today's legislation would ``deem'' a bill that the Senate has already voted down as passed by that very Senate. It would take a remarkable mind to even come up with such an idea. This notion, while clever, will never pass through the U.S. Senate. And let me remind you that what we're doing this morning, saying that we're going to bypass the Senate, would not do anything at all unless the Senate passed it of themselves saying, forget about us. It's simply not going to happen. The Republican majority claims this bill is a solution to a government shutdown. I hope that discussions regarding the solution to a government shutdown are taking place in offices between Senate and House Members and representatives of the administration as we speak. They are the people who can avoid that. The majority claims this bill is a solution, as I said. If this is their only solution, America is in big trouble. The solution to a government shutdown is to meet the Democratic Party at the negotiating table, not to propose scrapping the entire legislative process simply because the majority party refuses to tell the right wing of their party ``no.'' I am sad to say that today's legislation is more befitting an entry to Grimm's Fairy Tales than to this august body. I think it demeans the House to pretend to do the impossible, to pretend to do what we can't. Does the majority believe that majority confers supernatural powers upon them to bypass the United States Senate? In the House of Representatives, there are written rules for how the legislative process proceeds, rules that were crafted by Thomas Jefferson, rules that have been tried and true since the founding of this legislative body. These rules have helped lead our country through debates much more fractured than this. From civil war to civil rights, the rules of the House have seen us through struggle and strife and kept our country strong. Today's bill would throw away these rules and very much upset Thomas Jefferson. Every one of us knows as schoolchildren that there is no way for a bill to become law without both chambers acting on it, a conference committee to meet if necessary, and the signature of the President of the United States. I wish that I were not standing here having to explain to my colleagues how a bill becomes law. I said yesterday, and I must say it again, that I hope we have warped no children's minds. Anyone who may be watching the perversion of the process today and any teachers who are guiding children through this process, take courage, because you can see the video that will explain once again, ``I am a bill.'' Never before has anyone seriously considered the idea that one House can pass a bill and decide it will be the law of the land. Hopefully no party will ever try such a far-fetched tactic again. Just last year, the procedure to ``deem and pass'' legislation through the House was derided by Republicans as the ``Slaughter Solution,'' a procedure we ultimately chose not to use. At the time, Speaker Boehner called the deem and pass process ``an affront to every American.'' Now he brings his own ``dream and pass'' legislation to the floor. Finally, I want to speak to the process that leads us to the floor today. The proposed bill has seen no committee consideration of any kind, there has been no opportunity whatever for public input, it required an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee last night to rush it to the floor today, and no chair or ranking member of the four committees responsible for this legislation even came to the Rules Committee; with the Democrat ranking members saying they had never heard of the bill. They certainly did not want to come up and debate it. We are now considering another closed rule. A process such as this is far from ``the most open and transparent Congress in history'' that we were promised. If we are moving forward with emergency legislation under a closed rule, it should be for one reason: to create jobs. We've gone 13 weeks without a single jobs bill brought to the House floor by the majority. In fact, all of us know that that is the overriding fear in the United States today. Instead, we debate legislation so far- fetched that it will never proceed beyond this House floor. We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans, those who have no job and are losing their homes, while debating fantastical legislation that will never become law. This is a bad joke on the American people and not a serious solution to our problems. I urge my colleagues to think again about the proud tradition of the House of Representatives and how proud each of us are to be able to represent constituents here and to try to do it in a sensible way that can really move the country forward and not, as we are doing today, simply again wasting time. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. There is no need to apologize. That is perfectly all right.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We all were freshmen once. We understand.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. To respond, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide immediately after the House adopts this rule and brings up S. 388, a bill to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns. As we face the possibility of a shutdown and to discuss how to prevent and deal with it, there's one point on which we all agree--that Members of Congress should not be paid during a government shutdown. The Republican bill we're about to bring up ties this bipartisan pay proposal to a partisan bill that isn't going anywhere. We could pass the Member Pay bill today and clear it for the President and simply take the Senate bill from the desk. 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. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful, and that is deal with the pay of the President and the Congress and actually has a chance, because it has already passed the Senate, of being enacted into law. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I want to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Webster, on management of his first rule. I rise today in opposition to the Shuster amendment that would undermine the strong flight safety regulations passed by this Congress and meant to protect air travelers throughout the Nation. Last July, Congress came together to pass the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. It was landmark legislation requiring the FAA to implement the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board, which many of us thought the FAA already did, to establish a pilot records database to provide airlines with fast, electronic access to a pilot's record; to direct all airlines and Web sites that sell airline tickets to disclose who is operating each flight; and, of vital importance to those of us who live in western New York, make the necessary changes that address the underreported and deadly issue of pilot fatigue and inability to fly in bad conditions. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that this amendment stands to undermine all of these reforms. It would lay additional layers to the FAA's already cumbersome rulemaking process, only delaying what we fought so hard to create last year. And we must not go back. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing western New York, and flight safety is one of our highest priorities. It was outside Buffalo, in the suburb of Clarence, New York, on a snowy February evening that Continental Connection Flight 3407, operated by regional carrier Colgan Air, crashed to the ground, killing all 49 passengers and one man on the ground. It was a tragedy deeply felt in western New York and sent shock waves throughout the aviation community. As we discovered more details that fateful evening, we learned that the young pilot had never been trained on stall recovery techniques, which were needed that snowy night, and he had failed five different tests, but his employer only knew about two of those failures. One pilot had slept in the airport in a chair. The other had taken a red- eye flight from Seattle just the night before. It exposed delinquencies in commercial aviation that desperately need solutions. Pilots are often exhausted and underpaid. Discrepancies in the training requirements exist between major carriers and their regional partners. And pilot records are inconsistent, meaning a pilot's entire flying record was not available to his employer. In the 2 years that followed, we took tremendous effort to learn from the lessons of that painful night. Led by heroic family members of victims of Flight 3407, Congress passed the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act. I want to take a moment to recognize the courage and tenacity of those family members. In the past 2 years, they worked through the grief of their own loss and advocated for safer skies for the rest of us. Collectively, they have made 40 trips to Washington on their own money, constantly reminding Members of the House, Senate, and administration that improving aviation safety is never a cause that can be pushed aside. They have become the most effective group of citizens I have seen in my time in government. Every one of us, and we all do almost every week, who steps into an airplane owes them tremendously, and I am pleased to call them my friends. The Nation cannot thank them individually, but this Congress can thank them by voting ``no'' on the Shuster amendment. Because of their work and of those in Congress, there is no better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about flight safety than by honoring the people who died on that cold and snowy night. This has been the mission of their families, and it has become a mission of mine. Any attempt to turn back the clock on landmark provisions we passed last July will hurt everyone, including all the Members of Congress who, as I say, mostly fly back and forth to our districts each week. To think that the pilot flying that plane is so fatigued that he or she is not at their peak is astounding and dangerous to all of us. These safety provisions must stay intact. They must apply to all pilots. It should not take another tragedy for us to have to relearn the lessons of flight safety. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, which should not be in this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I come to the Floor today to stand in strong bipartisan support of Mr. LaTourette's and Mr. Costello's proposed amendment. At this time of extreme economic hardship for American workers across our country, it is vital that we, as their voice in Congress, defend their rights to unionize and advocate for a workplace that works for them. In recent weeks, workers from Wisconsin to Florida have been engaged in valiant efforts to defend their right to unionize, and collectively bargain for a better future. Workers have stood up across America calling for a more equal and more just American workplace. Their calls come at a dark time in our country. At no point in our history have incomes been so unequal--not even during America's so- called ``Gilded Age.'' Over the last 30 years, the American worker has been knocked down, and worn out, as she tries harder and harder to make diminishing ends meet. As currently written, today's bill continues to take from the middle class, when they can afford it the least. The amendment being considered is a commonsense protection provided to the middle and working class. Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello's amendment does nothing radical; indeed it preserves the status quo. Yet their amendment shows that there are still some members in both parties who are willing to stand for the middle and working class, and work for a better future. I urge my colleagues to stand with the middle class, and support Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello's amendment--for the benefit of the American worker, and the hope of a renewed American middle class.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 200 and 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote Nos. 200 and 201.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do not. May I inquire if you have more?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We have had a vigorous debate here this morning, just as we had in the Rules Committee. A lot was said, I guess, because it needed to be said. A lot was said, I think, that we could argue with. One is that we are doing this because it puts us on the road to deficit reduction. It is clear to everybody who reads, or maybe who listens to good programming, that this bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit and saves no money. Not a dime. This is purely an ideological bill so that our Members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio. I want to talk a moment about what's in a New York Times editorial this morning. This bill is, says the Times, ``The latest example of House Republicans pursuing a longstanding ideological goal in the false name of fiscal prudence.'' The Times says, ``This is not a serious bill. It will never survive the Senate or a Presidential veto.'' And further, ``Cutting off that flow would have no effect on the deficit, but it would allow certain House Members to pretend for the folks back home that they struck a blow for liberty.'' I really don't understand this. I know that the present chair of the Rules Committee this morning said that all the legislation that we have done this term has been on job creation. I don't believe there's enough evidence to convict on that, Mr. Speaker. This, again, will cause jobs to be lost and does nothing for the deficit. I don't care what you want to say about it and how you want to dress it up, those are the absolute facts. In a few moments, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat that previous question, I want to do a real jobs bill here. I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds To Create Jobs Now Act. This bill will spur job creation here at home by extending through 2012 the successful Build America Bonds program to help State and local governments finance the rebuilding of American schools, hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. It has been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds will create 34,800 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, weigh that against taking the little bit of money away from National Public Radio. Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the construction industry, and State and local governments. At a time of fiscal restraint, they are a good deal for the American taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild America and create jobs. 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 so that we can debate and pass jobs legislation today, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.