Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, our ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont, former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created 1.1 million private sector jobs. Update on Job Growth Under Health Reform Today's jobs report exposes the fatal flaw in the Republicans' argument that health reform is ``job killing.'' Since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created more than 1.1 million private-sector jobs. That's an average of 123,000 jobs created per month in the private sector since the enactment of health reform, compared to an average of 7,000 jobs lost per month in the private sector during the Bush Administration, when our health care system was in a downward spiral and insurers had free rein to raise premiums on families and small businesses by double digits and deny or limit coverage with no accountability or recourse. 12 Straight Months of Job Growth in the Private Sector More Than 1.3 Million Private-Sector Jobs Created in 2010 Unemployment Rate Drops From 9.8% to 9.4% 113,000 private-sector jobs were created in December, the 12th straight month of private-sector job growth. In all, more than 1.3 million private-sector jobs were created in 2010. That's a dramatic turnaround from the situation President Obama inherited in early 2009, when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. The November private-sector jobs number was revised up 29,000 to 79,000 private-sector jobs created, and the October number was revised up 33,000 to 193,000 private-sector jobs created. Government employment declined slightly in November; as a result, net payroll growth for the public and private sector combined was 103,000 in December. The unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in December. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of Government Oversight and Reform.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we are able to defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill (H.R. 2378) from the last Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for American workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies. I yield to the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to say this morning that I am delighted to be here. I want to give my congratulations to Mr. Dreier on reclaiming the Rules seat, and we are very keen on our side to make our case before you today. Madam Speaker, actually, my head is somewhat spinning because, not 20 minutes ago, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood where you are and said he was going to be listening to people, but the first order of business before the House came from the delegates whom this rule disenfranchises--not only the delegate of the District of Columbia but all of the Territories. They didn't get to say a word. So my head is somewhat spinning at this point, and we hope to try to at least give them unanimous consent so that they can try to get some message into the Record. It is again part of the rhetoric from the last campaign that keeps spinning in our heads: All we want to do, they said, is to bring down the deficit. We're going over a cliff, and we've got to bring down the deficit. As we stand here today, on the brink of a new session of Congress, the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will essentially gut PAYGO--the pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Under President Clinton, it gave us the biggest surplus we have ever had. It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the deficit. But not today. Their talk about belt-tightening and deficit reduction is going to be thrown out the window so that they can free themselves to hand out even more tax credits to their friends, the corporations. Under these proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected, but tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget about it. Obviously, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other respected news organizations have cried foul at this sleight of hand. In recent days, editorials have appeared slamming this hypocrisy and phony attempt at fiscal austerity. What seems crystal clear to me is that the other side has doubled down and adopted the mentality of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who responded to the 2002 midterm elections by advocating in favor of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts. ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. This is our due,'' said the Vice President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget cutters, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be able to make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them. Nor is their sleight of hand or hypocritical actions an isolated event. It was less than a month ago that Republicans successfully held unemployment benefits for Americans hostage until they got their wish-- more Bush-era tax cuts for the people making more than $1 million a year. That package added another $140 billion to the deficit, but that didn't seem to bother them either, obviously, as they have told the world it is their number one priority. Just this week, Republican new Members ushered in the new Congress with a $2,500 a plate fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington. Lobbyists, political action committee members, and other exclusive guests were treated to a night of drinks and entertainment by country singer LeAnn Rimes. Those who donated $50,000 were treated to a VIP suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment. Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told the Birmingham News in Alabama, ``In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.'' And according to Politico, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking for ways to make government more responsive to Wall Street and their corporate allies like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health. Instead of all this business as usual--and we are headed right back into where we were before 2006--what I'd like to see is an honest attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness, transparency, and good government. This set of rules is not that document. And I hope that the other side--and I believe they have good intentions--will join us in supporting this effort. Deficit Hypocrisy [From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2010] It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and--as a little bonus--won deep estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely. That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party's one real priority is tax cuts--despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some more: On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays, House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts. First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress annually.) The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit. It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement- spending increases be offset by spending cuts only--and actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such spending. Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years, but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that. Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural course of politics for which no payment is required. For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working families--extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal-- unless it is fully paid for. House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all, and it unfailingly rallies their base. The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to present an alternative, including investments--in energy, technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution. New Pay-Go Rules Reveal GOP's Misplaced Priorities [From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2011] Are House Republicans serious about dealing with the deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric--or you could read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting. The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to other programs or new revenue. In the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay. Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without any offsetting savings. If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed--not even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes, no problem. No need to pay for that. Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit- busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax break to let ``small businesses,'' which can be expansively defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross income. Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed to continue and would have to be paid for--with, of course, spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of priorities as can be imagined. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who, as I said, is disenfranchised by this rule. Millions of Americans will be underrepresented.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi). (Mr. PIERLUISI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan). (Mr. SABLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States. And the Constitution declares we are ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' But today the majority's Rules exclude us from even symbolic representation in our government. The Pledge to America declared the majority would fight those who whisper America's standing as the world leader of democracy is ending. But today the majority breaks its own Pledge with Rules that take away the vote from 5 million Americans. What a sad way to begin this new Congress.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the Delegate from Guam, Delegate Bordallo. (Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.