Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments this morning. I urge him to vote ``no'' on this bill if he plans to do that, and I think he will find a great deal of company. But I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we may debate and vote on this piece of legislation today. It is not perfect by any means. I rarely see a piece of perfect legislation. But remember that what we are doing here is concurring in a Senate bill, which limited the fact of how many changes that we would be able to make. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution 1766.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1766 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act. The rule provides 3 hours of debate and makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. If that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. Finally, until completion of all proceedings, the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice; the Chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the Speaker; and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly not perfect. In fact, I don't like it much at all. In the lead-up to the debate here this morning, a lot of my constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. They know it is an unwarranted handout for millionaires and billionaires at a time when we are still fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home and a deficit that would push us further into the red by this giveaway. A typical sentiment was reflected in a call from Ken, a Niagara Falls resident, who phoned my office to insist it was wrong-headed for Democrats, who control the House, the Senate, and White House, to agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His words were: ``Barack Obama is still the President of the United States, not Mitch McConnell, and McConnell should not get to dictate tax policy.'' To that, I say, I hear you. But, nonetheless, today here we are. There are some good things in this bill. Certainly extending unemployment relief for struggling American workers who may have been laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and necessities until they find a new job is important. During the last 2 years, this Congress has voted to cut taxes for working parents and small businesses at least eight times, and lower tuition costs for college students. We have provided the best opportunities for growth and prosperity. But losing $25 billion in revenue to provide a tax shelter to 6,600 families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just wrong, it is disgraceful, and it is damaging to the entire economic future of this country. In the aftermath of this negotiation, the President was accused of quitting in the first round, giving away the store, punting on first down, and other things that I don't want to go into here. But while this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as I said, that will benefit the American people. Failure to send the bill to the President's desk for his signature would result in tax hikes on millions of middle class families across our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are hardest hit by this recession. More importantly, I think it might risk slowing the economic recovery. However, I think it is very important for me to make this point: we have lived with these tax cuts for 10 years. It is certainly no secret to any American or anybody else in the world that our unemployment condition is perfectly awful. And to try to pretend to the American people that once we pass this great tax cut for the rich that jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like Alice in Wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast. I am just not one of them. It will not make that kind of difference. It simply, once again, makes the rich richer. But that was the price we had to pay for helping the middle class and the unemployed. I note that many of these tax cuts, as we know, were created 10 years ago. And what have they brought? Nothing but a deep-lasting recession. But what I also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this Congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease the deficit by 50 percent in 2 years, says to me that these will never expire. And I want to put that in connection with what we have done to the payroll tax. I consider this one of the greatest threats to Social Security and its future. If anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and believe that we are going to be able to reinstate that payroll tax on employers and employees, they only need to look at what is happening here today, that after 10 years of experience, which brought us no jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will, again, bring us no jobs. If this agreement doesn't become law, I know that the tax rates on the middle class will go up. They are going to end up paying more money, and I hate that, because God knows all the benefits in the last 10 years have gone to the wealthy. I dread seeing my America, the one I grew up in and I love, where I don't believe that the American Dream is available for children anymore. I am not going to cry about it, but I know that now that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, the poor children don't think about that much anymore. They think about trying to get an education, if they can, or trying to live another year. So we have to take this bill up today. No question about it. And I feel very sad about it. But I will tell you that it has been our experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we negotiate with our partners on the other side. They believe in trickle- down with all their heart: make everybody richer at the top, all those great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague Mr. McGovern said, who may never have worked a day in their life, and suddenly jobs are going to be produced. Please, America, please don't believe that. That is not what we are doing here today. We are not doing anything to benefit this economy here today. That logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for America to be doing today? I think not. But we know that the other side in the coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest and the wealthiest estates. All of those tangible outcomes are directed toward millionaires and billionaires. As long as I am serving in Congress, I will resist this with every fiber of my being because I don't think it does anything for our economy while adding to the deficit. In the end, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this rule so that we may have this 3-hour debate, which will give people plenty of time on both sides to express their opinion. It is a fair process. All the Members will be able to express their views. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1766.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, since I made a rather lengthy speech at our first rule this morning, I am going to be giving up my time to other Members. So I will at this point reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).