Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there is no defense for keeping this government closed, and if the majority were serious about funding the NIH in their 2014 appropriations bill, they would have provided it with adequate funds. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my friend and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that no one cares much about the 9 million women and children who are going to be cut off from nutrition programs or what happens to the spread of infectious diseases or people who need to pay for college. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO. Once again, if the majority had been interested in the NIH, it would have moved to introduce its appropriations bill with an increase in funding for the NIH, which it didn't. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished Ways and Means Committee ranking member. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this cynical and, quite frankly, offensive NIH funding bill. Instead of simply allowing a vote on the budget for the full government, the majority is continuing their hostage crisis approach to governing. Let us call this charade what it is. This is a desperate attempt by irresponsible lawmakers to play political games with a crisis they have created, a crisis that is costing the American economy $300 million a day. The number will go up as the shutdown continues. I am an ovarian cancer survivor. I stand here today because of the grace of God and because of the hard work done by the men and women at the NIH, so I know firsthand the value and the importance of medical research. I have been fighting for months--for years--to get this majority to support the lifesaving medical research at the National Institutes of Health. If you factor in population growth and inflation, NIH funding right now is over 14 percent below what it was in 2010, which is when the majority took over. The number of research grants is lower than it has been since 2001. This diminishes the NIH's ability to fund research, to conduct clinical trials, and to develop new lifesaving treatments. This majority has long refused to bring a labor, health and education funding bill up for consideration, though I have asked over and over and over again for them to bring it up. The budget they drafted a few months ago made deep and dangerous cuts to the NIH, and the bill before us seeks to make permanent the unacceptable funding cuts caused by sequestration--cuts that are stalling lifesaving biomedical research all across this country. The majority talks out of both sides of its mouth. I find this new attention to NIH funding disingenuous. Mr. Speaker, while medical research is vitally important, it is also only one of the many vitally important things our government does. We also help to feed women and children who are living on the edge, and 9 million have been cut off from nutritional support. We also keep track of the spread of infectious diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control has been forced to halt those activities. We help students pay for college. We protect the Nation's food supply. We provide meals to low-income seniors. We help support food banks for the hungry. We shelter the homeless. We further the march of science. We provide job training for the unemployed and returning veterans. We ensure access to mental health services for those who need them. We educate the disadvantaged and the disabled. We ensure the Nation has clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. We help small businesses start and grow. We help middle class home buyers secure funds. Where is the funding for all of these other important activities? The American people are sick of this reckless behavior. It is time to act like responsible adults. Instead of letting the extreme wing of the majority shut down the government, instead of wasting time trying to play politics, instead of cherry-picking important programs like the NIH to fund, we should be working on a budget for the entire government, one that does right by all of our fundamental priorities-- creates jobs, supports the middle class and working families, and ensures long-term growth. That is what we were elected to do. That is our job. Let's stop playing games and get to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would just say very, very quickly to my colleague from Georgia, the affordable care bill is launched. It is the law of the land. It's going forward. I'm sorry to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle: Get over it. It is the law of the land. What we have here is really, quite frankly, reckless behavior on the part of the majority, and what you have done is shut this government down. And instead of wasting time trying to play politics, and instead of cherry-picking important programs like the NIH to fund, we should be working on a budget for the entire government, open the government, and move to negotiations. With regard to health care issues, I think it's important to note-- and that's why we shouldn't be opening the government on a piecemeal basis--we need a comprehensive short-term continuing resolution that keeps the entire government open and at work. What other activities are engaged in health that you are bypassing or ignoring or don't believe they have any priority? Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of their personnel are now on furlough. Important programs like protecting public health are going by the wayside: monitoring for flu, other infectious diseases; promoting and coordinating immunizations; assistance to State and local departments in detecting and responding to disease outbreaks; programs to prevent, detect, or better manage chronic diseases--diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and, yes, cancer. The Food and Drug Administration, you've sent the staff home. Our food safety is in danger. HRSA, HIV/AIDS, and others, mental health services. If you care about health, open the government and negotiate on a long-term CR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I just might quickly say to my colleague from Georgia-- and I know he knows this--that Congress set the cap percentage and instructs the Secretary on how it should be used. And with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible and purely political proposal by the House majority. The Government of the United States is shut down. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees are furloughed. Our country is bleeding from 1,000 self-inflicted cuts, and this majority is trying to play political games rather than work to resolve the crisis. Because the majority has decided to shut the government down, all three of the priorities that we are voting on today--the Veterans Affairs Department, the National Park Service, the D.C. government--are in immediate need of funding, but so are countless other priorities that are not part of these proposals. Right now, nearly 9 million mothers and children are losing out on infant formula and nutrition support; food banks are being forced to curtail their activity. Food safety efforts at the Food and Drug Administration are being compromised. Families cannot get home loans. Small businesses cannot get SBA loans. Seventy-three percent of the National Institutes of Health have been furloughed, and biomedical research that saves lives is on hold. The Centers for Disease Control has been forced to halt its tracking of influenza cases right at the start of the flu season. Scientific research at NASA and the National Science Foundation is stalled. Federal economic reports used by businesses and investors are not being released. Environment reviews are not happening. Tax returns are not being processed. The government is shut down, and families all across America are being affected in countless different ways. On my way over here, I took the subway that takes us from our offices to the Capitol. The driver of that subway said to me: Do you see what they're doing, Ms. DeLauro? He said: I believe in opening up the park service and the D.C. government and the Veterans Affairs, but who cares about me? I don't know if I'm going to get paid. Do you know what kind of stress that has put me and my family under? All I could do was reach out my hand to him and tell him the Republican majority just doesn't care. It's time to get real. Reopen the entire government. Stop this irresponsible charade. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We are hours away from a shutdown of the Federal Government that will damage our economy and make life harder for millions of families, especially families living on the edge. If the majority continues down this path, hundreds of thousands of workers will be sent home; many others will continue to work without pay; antihunger and nutrition support for women, infants, and children will dry up; home and small business lending will freeze; lifesaving research will be put on hold; parks and museums will close. The one thing this will not stop is the Affordable Care Act going into effect. That act is the law of the land, passed by the Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and endorsed by the American people last November. Tomorrow, regardless of what the majority tries to do here tonight, enrollment begins so that affordable health insurance coverage is available. Instead of working with Democrats to move a budget forward, the majority's leadership is allowing the fringe ideologues in their party to turn the budget process into a hostage crisis. Kill the Affordable Care Act, they argue, or America gets it. This is not responsible leadership. Nonpartisan studies have shown that the delay in this amendment will cause higher health insurance premiums, higher costs for the government, and worse health care coverage for everyone. The majority knows exactly what they are doing. Two days ago they introduced amendments that were poison pills. Now we see an equally poisonous amendment to the budget today. They are rooting for a shutdown. One Republican Member even said, and I quote, ``We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it.'' Another said, and I quote, ``It's wonderful.'' It is not wonderful. It is terrible for our economy and for our families. This is extortion and this is hostage-taking. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the act before us. I support the track-and-trace provisions to prevent fake medication from entering the drug supply, and I commend the ranking member for his efforts. But the voluntary approach to regulating large-scale compounding pharmacies in this bill is not strong enough to ensure the public's safety in this arena. This is a life-and-death issue. Last year, one single compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts caused a fungal meningitis outbreak that sickened over 700 people and caused over 60 deaths, which is why I introduced legislation to draw a clear line between whether a business is a traditional compounding pharmacy or a drug manufacturer, like the one in New England, and to ensure the proper mandatory FDA regulation of compounding drug manufacturers shipping mass amounts of drugs across State lines. Under this bill, large-scale, high-risk compounding manufacturers would voluntarily register with the Food and Drug Administration without meaningful enough penalties for failing to comply. That New England Compounding Center, responsible for over 60 deaths, would not have to register. This voluntary approach will continue to expose patients to potentially unsafe mass-produced compounded drugs that are not approved or evaluated by the FDA for safety, efficacy, and adequate directions for use. It is an approach that can do real harm, and it is time for the FDA to be the regulatory agency it was intended to be. At the very least, given that lives are at stake, the House should consider this issue as a stand-alone bill, through regular order, with the opportunity for amendments. It should not be on a suspension calendar; and as it is on the suspension calendar, I must oppose this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me begin by paraphrasing Sir Walter Scott, and I think it's really an accurate description of what is going on on the other side of the aisle with the Republican majority. Sir Walter Scott said: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. This is about deception of where we are moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It aims to put our country on the same radical, dangerous, ideological path that was decisively repudiated at the polls last November. We all know one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over. Well, here we are again. The House majority is trying to move one step closer to locking in the deep, automatic cuts caused by sequestration. Everyone in this room knows these cuts are destroying jobs all across America, robbing children of the education they need, slowing the pace of lifesaving research, and threatening everything from public safety to public health. Even the chair of the Appropriations Committee--I might add, a Republican--has said: Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end. This rule does exactly the opposite. It allows the majority to advance a budget that makes these dangerous cuts permanent. This resolution also seeks--for the 43rd time--to deny quality, affordable health care to millions of Americans. In fact, the Affordable Care Act has passed the Congress--House and Senate. It was signed into law by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. And it was reaffirmed by the American people at the ballot box. Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: get over it. The Nation doesn't want to repeal this bill. They do want, if there are problems, to make changes. In short, it is the law of the land--one that will help Americans lead healthier lives without having to worry about being bankrupted by an injury or an illness. And what my colleagues want to do, quite frankly, is they want to return your decisions on your health care back to the insurance companies to make the decisions on your health care, and to tell you that they're not going to cover you for a preexisting condition. They won't cover your child who may have asthma or autism, or for someone like myself, who is a cancer survivor.

Ms. DeLAURO. And because they cannot repeal the law through the usual process, the majority is threatening to bring down the government--and soon, the economy--to get their way. This could not be more irresponsible. They also want to push forward a rule that will move their farm bill with $40 billion in cuts in the food stamp programs, while at the same time providing $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies for wealthy agribusiness. Deep cuts to the food stamp program have nothing to do with cutting the debt and everything to do with the majority's radical ideology. The Department of Agriculture reports it spent $14 billion on crop insurance last year alone. This majority chooses to force over 4 million low-income Americans to go hungry--children, seniors, veterans, and working families--while continuing to provide the richest of subsidies to the rich. Let's be clear: we are at the eleventh hour. It is time for the majority to stop playing games, stop trying to repeal the last election, and stop trying to push a government and the entire economy into a shutdown. We have to do better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting Sir Walter Scott: What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. This amendment is an exercise in deception. It is designed to shut the government down. It drastically underfunds the fundamental priorities of the American people, and it tries yet again to delay families' access to affordable health care. We do not have time for this sort of recklessness. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned us that the automatic across-the-board cuts could cost us as many as 750,000 jobs in 2013. The majority wants to make these cuts permanent, regardless of the job loss, damage to our economy, or harm to working families across the country. Because of the deep cuts enshrined here, over 57,000 children lose access to early learning through Head Start. These children never get that opportunity back. The biomedical research that saves lives is being curtailed, delayed, or lost. Educational programs are sharply reduced for over a million of our most disadvantaged kids, even though one in five children currently live in poverty. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults are losing access to job training. Low-income seniors lose out on 5 million congregate and home- delivered meals. Mental health programs are being gutted. And with this funding, labor, health, and education programs are slashed 17 percent. Beyond the deep cuts, the Republican majority is, once again, trying to use the budget process to take the government hostage unless we delay the Affordable Care Act. Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans with preexisting conditions finally have coverage. Women's health is finally on an equal footing. Maternity and pediatric care is covered, and preventive care can be obtained with no out-of-pocket costs. The doughnut hole is closing for seniors. Young people stay on their parents' plans. It empowers patients and doctors. And yes, insurance companies no longer can make the decision about whether or not you will get health insurance or not get it. The Affordable Care Act is, at last, affordable health care for more American families. We stand on the verge of a government shutdown. Instead of behaving responsibly, of working towards a reasonable compromise, the majority continues to put their personal, radical ideology above the fundamental priorities of the American people. This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us. While the Delta Queen may be a historic vessel, exempting her from cruise ship fire safety law sets a terrible precedent, and it puts families at risk. Moreover, this bill is designed to help one ship in the passenger cruise market at the expense of all others. I understand the Delta Queen has a long and a distinguished history. Since it was built in the 1920s, it carried three Presidents; it is a national historic landmark. But that is all the more reason why fire safety law is important here. This is an old ship, made almost entirely of wood and powered by out- of-date technology, that has been in dry dock for the past 4 years and not inspected in 5 years. The Queen's antique engines and steam boilers are prone to cause a fire at any moment. In fact, the last fire on board was in 2008. So there is good reason why the U.S. Coast Guard opposes this legislation. The boat could pose a significant danger to families staying on board overnight. You know, the issue about on the sea, on the river, people can die on the river as well as die on the sea. In addition to that, there is nothing in this legislation that requires the owners to implement the safety upgrades. And you know, as my colleague said, and I would take issue with him on the other side of the aisle, safety is not a red herring. And even beyond the specific circumstances of the Delta Queen, I do not believe it is a wise policy for the Congress to get into the habit of exempting businesses from basic safety regulations; nor should we be choosing, through legislation, which cruise ship companies have to follow the rules and which do not. There are many ways to recognize and to honor the Delta Queen's rich history on the Mississippi River. This is not the right approach. As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Members of Congress have health insurance. People in this Nation can't afford health insurance, but they would cut it off. They would make it impossible for people to get preventive care to keep their kids up to age 26 on their own health insurance coverage and say to the insurance companies, Go for it again. You can't deny people health care coverage and talk about preexisting conditions. Families all over America are struggling. This budget resolution is designed to make it worse for them. This is not a game. We are talking about people's lives. We have a moral responsibility. We are here to represent the American people, not our own personal agenda, not our own political agenda and our own ideology. We have to do better. We must vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this cynical and misconceived funding bill, designed to push us into a government shutdown. Yesterday, we saw this majority on a party-line vote rob food from the mouths of over 4 million low-income Americans, including children, seniors, and veterans. This resolution before us would only further punish American families and accelerate the majority's race to the bottom. In fact, the majority's leadership has been quite explicit about their intentions. They want to lock in the cuts that we have seen to education programs and health programs. They want to make those cuts permanent. That's their opening position. They have also been quite up front that the only way they would mitigate against these cuts is in exchange for cuts to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid. Even though these deep cuts are producing harmful results all over the country, the majority wants to use them as leverage for further negotiations. It is about ideology, and it is just a game to them. People's lives don't seem to matter. Let me remind this body what's happening all over America because of the across-the-board cuts. More than 57,000 children are losing access to early learning through Head Start. Over 1 million of our most disadvantaged children at thousands of schools across America would lose access to the support they need to provide the instruction that they need. Already overburdened State and local education agencies are being forced to pick up a higher share of the cost for educating more than 6 million students with special needs. Over 30,000 kids are losing access to childcare, putting their parents' jobs and their families' economic security even more at risk. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults, veterans, seniors, and dislocated workers are losing access to job-training programs. The biomedical research that saves lives in cancer, diabetes, autism, that research is being curtailed. I'm a cancer survivor. Biomedical research and the grace of God have allowed me to stand here today, but they would cut off biomedical research. It is either going to be delayed or lost. And the list goes on--food safety, law enforcement, public health. We compromise our economy, the health and the well-being of American families, and our very future as a Nation. Instead of working to pass a compromised bill that addresses the budget in a serious and in a responsible manner, they have used this process to try, yet again, to derail the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans affordable care for the 42nd time. These Members have health insurance. Most Americans do not that they can afford.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, more than 57,000 children losing access to early learning through Head Start, you can't make that up. When you've lost that Head Start slot, that child can't go to school; that learning opportunity is done. That is about the future of that youngster. They would cut off biomedical research that saves lives. I'm a cancer survivor. They would cut off the research that provides us with the opportunity to save people's lives in this Nation. They cut money for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration. Instructional services are being sharply reduced. Education cuts. There are similar cuts in place to every other national priority we care about--court systems, food safety, transportation, you name it. Instead of fixing these cuts, the majority is trying to make it worse for American families. This resolution is not a serious attempt at addressing the budget; it is an ideological charade. Its purpose is to shut down the government and leave the American people on their own. I urge my colleagues to take no part of this and reject it.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this cynical and reckless rule and the underlying funding bill. This is neither a serious nor a good faith effort to address the fundamental responsibilities in our budget. Instead, the majority is trying to hamstring the government. They want it to be broken, and they want to make it seem like it cannot address real problems. That is why now they are committed to pushing us headlong into a government shutdown whereby they would leave the American people on their own in what are difficult, difficult economic times. This rule does not responsibly address our budget in any way. Instead, the majority is using the resolution to ensure that their dangerously low funding levels are the ceiling for future budget negotiations, and to try for over the 40th time to thwart the law of the land and to derail the Affordable Care Act, which denies affordable health care to families. We passed the Affordable Care bill in the House of Representatives. We passed it in the United States Senate. The President signed the bill. The Supreme Court upheld the bill. But now this crowd wants to stop it by not providing the money to fund it and they want to repeal it. The American public says: don't repeal the Affordable Care Act. Don't do that. Let's implement it. And, yes, if there are fixes to be made, let's do that. Because right now children, their parents can no longer be told by an insurance company we won't provide insurance coverage for your child that might have asthma, or autism, or anything else because we have regarded that in the past as a preexisting condition. It is no longer a preexisting condition. Quite frankly, what they want to do is to turn your health care insurance coverage back to the insurance companies that can say no. I say to them: get over it. It's the law of the land. Let's implement it and make the changes. And while this majority plays games, the deep and dangerous across- the-board cuts which they are trying to enshrine in this bill are threatening our economy, our health, our well-being, and the future of American families. Both the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argued that these across-the-board cuts will cost us as many as 750,000 jobs. That's not all.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Jennifer, a mother from New Mexico, a face of hunger in America.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest this rule and these deep and disastrous cuts to food stamps. This $40 billion in cuts goes against decades of bipartisan support for the fight against hunger in the United States. It will hurt our economy, and it is, in a word, immoral. If this cruel legislation were to become law, at least 4 million of the Nation's poorest citizens would lose access to the food that they need. We are talking about people on the edge: families whose breadwinners just got laid off; veterans returning from service who are looking for jobs, 170,000 of them; seniors struggling to make ends meet after a lifetime of work and who will be forced to make the choice between food and medicine; and millions of low-income children whose futures will be irreparably harmed by these reckless cuts. Don't take my word for it: In working with Census data, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities projects that, roughly, 170,000 veterans could lose access to food stamps under the provisions of this bill; The AARP called these efforts to cut antihunger programs an ``abandonment of the Nation's commitment to ensuring essential nutrition access for many U.S. households''; Two former Senate majority leaders, Republican and Democrat--Bob Dole and Tom Daschle--have called this bill an ``about-face on our progress fighting hunger.'' Senator Dole is right--the majority's leadership has lost its way on this issue. For decades, there has been bipartisan support for food stamps, our Nation's most important antihunger program. They help over 47 million Americans--nearly half of them are children--escape the scourge of hunger. Nearly all food stamp recipients live below 130 percent of the poverty line, and 75 percent of food stamp households include a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person. It also boasts one of the lowest error rates of any government program. Economists agree that food stamps have a powerful, positive impact on the health of not just families but of the entire economy, and they get money into the hands of people who spend it on the food that they need. Cutting antihunger funding like this is not just immoral; it makes no economic sense. I might add that it makes no economic sense either to cut $40 billion from food stamps for the poor while preserving $90 billion in crop insurance for the wealthy, including that of 26 farmers, who made over $1 million from the Federal Government. These are 26 wealthy farm owners whom we are prevented from identifying. They won't tell us who they are. They are protected. It is just plain wrong. If the majority's leadership is serious about wanting to lower the number of Americans on food stamps, increase the minimum wage. Taking food out of the mouths of the hungry is not the answer.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, later today, this body will vote on the House majority leadership's plan to cut $40 billion from food stamps and force over 4 million low-income Americans--citizens, veterans, seniors, and children--to go hungry. This bill is immoral. It is wrong to take food from the mouths of hungry people. It is especially cruel when, at the same time, the House majority continues to support crop insurance subsidies for wealthy farms and agribusinesses. Let us be clear about this so-called ``nutrition bill'' we are voting on today. The majority's leadership is making an explicit choice. They want us to force the poorest families in America to go hungry at a time of great need, while continuing to support and even expand giant government subsidies to the wealthy. This is reverse Robin Hood. This makes no economic sense. Even as it left anti-hunger programs in limbo, the farm bill passed in July by the majority expanded crop insurance subsidies. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, these crop insurance subsidies will cost taxpayers $90 billion over the next decade. USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, reports it spent $14 billion on crop insurance last year alone. Keep in mind that means we will spend over twice as much on these subsidies as this proposed cut to food stamps will save us. Some Members of the majority like to argue that these deep cuts to food stamps are necessary and that we, the richest Nation on Earth, cannot afford to help feed the most vulnerable members of our society. This is untrue. A decision is being made to cut $40 billion in food aid to the poor while giving $90 billion in subsidies to the wealthy. That is not right. So who exactly are receiving these subsidies? That is a good question. Right now, U.S. taxpayers pay, on average, almost two-thirds of crop insurance premiums for high-income farmers; 62 percent, we pay, for these crop insurance premiums. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government paid $1.4 billion in crop insurance administrative costs to financial and insurance companies, including a bank in Switzerland. Last year, over 10,000 farmers each received over $100,000 in crop insurance subsidies. And because the program is not means tested or capped, 26 farmers made over $1 million from the Federal Government; 26 wealthy farm owners whom we are prevented from identifying, and they could even be Members of Congress. We can't get their names. They are statutorily protected. And as I stand here, we are going to fight every day to get the names of these 26 individuals. Meanwhile, the bill that we considered today would deny SNAP benefits to jobless adults without children whose incomes average only about one-fifth of the poverty line; and that, my friends, is $2,500 a year. Let's say ``no'' to them for food on their tables. We also know that crop insurance subsidies have a higher error rate, meaning more waste, fraud, and abuse, than the food stamp program, one of the most efficient programs the Federal Government undertakes. And sadly, we know that there are Members of the majority arguing strenuously for these deep cuts to food aid who, at the same time, are pocketing millions themselves in crop insurance subsidies. They should be ashamed. Families on food stamps are struggling. We hear about seniors who have to choose between buying food and medicine, veterans trying to get back on their feet after serving their country, students in the classroom who can't even concentrate when others are eating because they're actually going hungry. These are the Americans this bill would see go hungry, even as we subsidize handouts to wealthy farmers. This is immoral. If this is not wrong, nothing is wrong. But even if that doesn't sway you, consider the math. This bill would cut $40 billion from food aid, while the majority in this body voted to keep $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies. It would deny over 4 million low-income individuals a chance to eat, even as we are giving 26 faceless individuals $1 million each. I cannot support a bill that hurts millions of low-income citizens, children, seniors, veterans, as the majority continues to subsidize wealthy agribusiness. Historically, addressing hunger in America has been a bipartisan effort, Democrats and Republicans who come together to say we have a serious problem of hunger in America; let's work to eradicate it. That was McGovern and Dole, Javits, Kennedy, and so many others. I urge my colleagues in both parties to vote this heartless bill down.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out the near-universal condemnation that the majority's wrong-headed plan to cut $40 billion from food stamps has received from advocates, researchers, and American families. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has noted how 170,000 veterans could lose access to food aid because of this act. The National Education Association said this plan will ``result in more than 210,000 children losing access to nutritious meals, which help children be more attentive in class.'' AARP condemns this bill saying ``hungry children, seniors and families cannot and should not have to wait on the economic and political sidelines for access to an effective nutrition safety net.'' Homeless organizations have said this act will ``worsen the lives of up to 4 million Americans who are either homeless already or whose risk of homelessness would become even more severe.'' The Catholic Bishops have said this bill will ``harm hungry children, poor families, vulnerable citizens, seniors and workers who are underemployed and unable to find employment.'' The list of opposition to tomorrow's bill goes on, even from Republican leaders like Senator Bob Dole. I urge all members of conscience in the majority to join with us tomorrow to vote down this cruel legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Supporting Access to Formulated and Effective Compounded Drugs Act, or the S.A.F.E. Compounded Drug Act. My colleagues Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York, Congressman Conyers of Michigan, and Congressman Honda of California are cosponsors of this legislation and I thank them for their work on this issue. This bill seeks to ensure that patients and health care providers across the country have access to safe compounded drug products. As you know, a devastating fungal meningitis outbreak last year was associated with contaminated products from a compounding facility in Massachusetts. Nearly 750 Americans became ill from these products and 61 perished. Unfortunately, this tragic outbreak and the others we have seen since are not anomalies. They are the result of a broken system. My thoughts and prayers are with the individuals and families whose lives have been affected by these contaminated products. Earlier this week the Government Accountability Office released a report on drug compounding. That report noted that ``lack of consensus and differing FDA authority to oversee compounded drugs across the country has resulted in gaps in oversight.'' Gaps that clearly risk the public health. Just this week a compounding pharmacy announced the recall of more than 125 different types of sterile compounded products distributed nationally. Five days after the company began notifying its customers of the recall, a recall notice was published by the FDA. These products are being recalled because of a ``question of sterility assurance.'' Thankfully no illnesses have been identified, but it is imperative that we act now and not wait for another heart wrenching outbreak and ask ourselves if we could have prevented it in the first place. The bill I am introducing today should be part of our work to fix the system. It would do five things: clarify Federal authority of compounding pharmacies, improve patient and provider notification with accurate labeling, improve communication between Federal and state regulators, seek additional information to improve our understanding of the complexities related to compounded products, and strengthen penalties. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Decrease Unsafe Toxins (D.U.S.T.) Act, which would ban children's cushioned products that contain an unacceptable level of toxic flame retardant chemicals. In doing so, this bill would reduce infant and children exposure to these harmful chemicals. This bill would set a maximum level of 1,000 parts per million for the toxic chemicals in the filling materials used in products, such as high chairs, strollers, bouncers, infant walkers, changing pads, and baby carriers. Studies clearly show that exposure to these toxic chemicals may be associated with cancer, birth defects, immune disruption, reproductive disorders, hormonal imbalances, and neurologic and mental development disorders. Toddlers who crawl in the dust and put their hands in their mouths have three to four times the levels of toxic flame retardants in their bodies compared to their parents. This is at an age when their neurological and reproductive organs are still developing and they are the most vulnerable to the toxic effects of the chemicals. In addition to the potential health hazards, flame retardants have not been found to significantly improve fire safety or prevent ignitions from small flame sources. According to data from fire protection groups, such as the National Fire Protection Association, no fire safety benefit exists from including flame retardant chemicals in these products. Our current regulatory system does not protect our children from such toxic chemicals. We must act now to help reduce our exposure and protect our most vulnerable, our children. The legislation has been endorsed by the Green Science Policy Institute, Women's Voices for the Earth, Clean Production Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, First Focus, Environmental Working Group, Zero to Three, IKEA North America Services, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Children's Defense Fund, and Alaska Community Action on Toxins. I hereby submit for the Record letters of support from these organizations and urge the House of Representatives to consider this bill to improve the health of infants and kids in communities across America. Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, CA, July 17, 2013. Dear Congresswoman DeLauro: The Green Science Policy Institute is writing in support of the Decrease Unsafe Toxins (DUST) Act that will be introduced in the 113th Congress. The DUST Act seeks to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to ban flame retardant chemicals from use in resilient filling materials in children's products. At Green Science Policy Institute independent research and scientific integrity guide our mission to promote responsible use of chemicals, ensuring a healthy planet for current and future generations. We provide unbiased scientific data to facilitate informed decision-making about the use of chemicals in consumer products. We encourage scientists to use their research in the public interest. We are currently focusing on reducing the use of unnecessary flame retardants due to their adverse impacts on human and environmental health. Flame retardant chemicals are currently added to the foam of baby products and furniture to meet California Furniture Flammability Standard Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117). Flame retardant use in California furniture and juvenile products to meet 1B117 has not led to a measurable improvement in fire safety. The use of some halogenated flame retardants may actually decrease fire safety since they can increase the amount of soot, smoke, carbon monoxide and other toxic gases produced when a product does burn. The soot and smoke can impede escape and toxic gases, rather than flames, are the largest cause of fire deaths. Importantly, baby products do not pose a fire hazard. TB117 is scheduled to be updated on January 1, 2014 so flame retardants will no longer be needed in children's product foam in California. DUST Act legislation will align with this important change. Working in collaboration with researchers at Duke University and the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Green Science Policy Institute collected foam samples from baby products and found that 80% of products tested contained chemical flame retardants which are either known to be associated with adverse health effects or lack adequate health information. Children and infants are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of these chemicals, some of which have been linked with reduced IQ, learning disorders, reduced fertility, thyroid disruption and cancer. Babies are born with these chemicals in their bodies and get a further dose from their mother's milk and exposure to baby products. The average American home can contain pound levels of these chemicals. Flame retardant chemicals leak from products into dust. Dust gets on hands and food. Babies and children crawl, sit and play on the floor where dust settles. They explore the world by putting things in their mouths. We urge Congress to adopt the DUST Act to protect infants and children from these unnecessary harmful toxins. Sincerely, Dr. Arlene Blum, Executive Director. Dr. Veena Singla, Associate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.