Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us addresses a fictional problem. Simply put, the Nation's largest food companies think that States are giving consumers too much information about the food they use to feed their families. Along with the corporate lobbyists who wrote this bill, and we all know who they were because the paper printed them this week, these companies think it is wrong that States tell people when the bottled water on their supermarket shelves has high levels of arsenic. They think it is wrong to inform a pregnant woman that eating mercury-laden fish could do serious damage to a fetus. And what about letting people know that their ground beef was treated with carbon monoxide? That apparently is wrong too. And I want to elaborate on that for just a moment. Many stores now buy their meat from common suppliers instead of having their own butchers at hand. In order to keep it looking fresh and looking better for a longer time, they treat it with carbon monoxide. You know, if you die from carbon monoxide poisoning, you turn a nice, bright, pink-red, which is what their meat does, and then they can keep it even for months. I saw a picture of one from November that it looked like it had just been butchered yesterday. That is apparently wrong too. Do you want to eat that? They want us to buy more and think less about health and safety and that alone is the motivation behind this bill. Supporters of the bill claim all they want to do is to make consumer protections the same for all Americans. But that is not what this bill will do. Most States already give their citizens much more information about the food than the Food and Drug Administration even requires. In fact, 80 percent of the food safety work performed in the United States is done by State and local officials. They are the ones with the expertise, the on-the- ground experience, and are needed to keep consumers safe, and they have been doing a good job. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate State labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide. Listen, mothers, this is important. The consequences of this bill are going to be drastic. Within a matter of months, 200 State food safety laws will be wiped off the books. Will they be the ones that protect your child from an asthma attack or from dyes that would hurt them? The experienced State health officials who want their regulations back are going to have to come, hat in hand, to the FDA and ask for permission to give their States more information than the Federal Government requires, which is paltry. They will have to plead with the FDA bureaucrats to keep the food safety laws in place, laws that their own legislatures and citizens have already established. In other words, they would have to seek approval from an agency that does not keep us safe anymore, an agency that cannot meet its current workload, and that, as we all know, has been in the business of approving drugs that turned out to be killing people and had to be removed from the market. Now, I grew up believing that the FDA took care of me. And that was a lot like believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, because if I have learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is the FDA cannot do that. But suddenly the party of States' rights and small government wants to forget about both. Instead, it wants to send quality State regulations that are protecting Americans into a bureaucratic black hole. Mr. Speaker, the people and organizations most concerned about the safety of our Nation's food stand in strong opposition to this bill. Attorneys General and public health and safety officials from all over the United States, in fact most of them, if not all of them, have come out against it and begged us not to pass it. In fact, the Association of Food and Drug Officials recently wrote a letter to the Representative who sponsored this bill, asking him to reconsider his own legislation. He said, ``Members of the AFDO are State and local governments with no profit motive.'' That is the key here. These people have no profit motive, merely a public health concern, who feel strongly that the legislation will gravely impair State and local authorities' ability to protect their constituents. Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows: The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Washington, DC, February 27, 2006. Dear Members of Congress: The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to reiterate our concern and strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Foods Act. NASDA represents the commissioners, secretaries and directors of the state departments of agriculture in the fifty states and four territories. The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4167 this week and we urge you to oppose this legislation. The state departments of agriculture are very concerned that this bill goes far beyond its stated purpose of providing uniform food safety warning notification requirements and greatly expands federal preemption under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Such additional preemptions would seriously compromise our ability to enact laws and issue rules in numerous areas of food safety. Specifically, we believe the bill as currently written threatens existing state food safety programs and jeopardizes state/ federal food safety cooperative programs such as those related to Grade A milk, retail food protection and shellfish sanitation. As you know, the current food safety regulatory system in the United States is the shared responsibility of local, state and federal partners. Approximately 80% of food safety inspections in the nation are completed at state and local levels. It is imperative that states have the right to act quickly to address local and statewide public health concerns that cannot be anticipated or are not adequately addressed nationally. In addition, our existing food safety system forms the first line of defense against the threat of a terrorist attack against our nation's food supply. Passage of this legislation will undermine the authority of state laws and programs that address adulterated foods, including animal feed, commodity laws and other food defense programs. NASDA firmly believes the preemption of state and local food safety programs would leave a critical gap in the safety net that protects consumers. We call on Congress to hold hearings to discuss these critical issues and seek full input from state and local partners in the food safety system. NASDA would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways the bill could be amended to achieve its intent while limiting the impact on critical food safety regulatory programs at the local and state levels. Now is not the time to pass H.R. 4167 and we urge you to oppose this legislation until these important issues are addressed. Sincerely, J. Carlton Courter III, President. As is often the case, the bill before us does more than provide just another example of how private interests trumped the public good in today's Congress. It also shows us how broken and undemocratic our political system has become. No hearings were held on this legislation. No State and no local public health officials were called to testify about it, even though they offered. Both the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of Food and Drug Officials expressed their willingness to talk to Congress about the issue, but they were turned away. These dedicated public servants were ignored because this legislation could never have withstood proper scrutiny. It was written with special interests in mind, not the public interests, pure and simple. Last year the majority pledged honest and immediate reform of the way Congress wrote its bills, because when the public caught on to what was going on here, there was a great outcry. And yet here we are, in a new year, doing the very same thing: handing over the public interests to private corporations. I wish we had an open and democratic process in this House. We need to stop passing bills that hold the public interest in contempt, and we need to start today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for assured funding for the veterans' health care. For too long, funding for the critical services needed by our veterans has been subject to the political whims of Congress and the Administration and budgetary schemes intended to hide inefficiencies and misplaced priorities. With a new generation of veterans returning home from their duty overseas, we must ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs has the resources necessary to honor the promises we have made to our veterans. Last year, the Administration admitted that it had underestimated the number of servicemen and women requiring medical treatment upon return from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Within one week, the Administration begrudgingly reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs was $1 billion short of being able to fulfill its obligations to veterans for Fiscal Year 2005, and would be $2.6 billion short of fulfilling its obligations for Fiscal Year 2006 without Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bills. Efforts to fully restore funding were initially stymied by denial and vain attempts to save face by those who had condemned attempts to provide adequate funding to the VA during the traditional appropriations process. What should have been a quick fix to an embarrassing problem turned into a drawn out negotiation battle between those who argued that the VA needed only the barest minimum sum of money to carry out its mission and those who demanded additional funding to guarantee veterans' health care would not be interrupted. Once again, veterans' healthcare was left in limbo while the Congressional Leadership played politics. In the face of growing public outrage, the funding shortfall was eventually restored. But, it appears that we have learned nothing from the preventable incident. Yet again, veterans' health care will be subject to the lengthy, political appropriations process and the Administration's request again shortchanges veterans. Mr. Speaker, our veterans dutifully and courageously honored their commitment to our Nation. Now, it is our turn to keep our promises. American veterans deserve better than to have their healthcare in constant jeopardy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting assured funding for veterans healthcare so that those who have served will always have the care they need when they need it. We can, and must, do better for our nation's veterans. With the most sincere gratitude for all that American veterans have done to protect our freedom.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the outgoing Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna. After a successful tenure in office, the Ambassador is returning home to New Brunswick. Due to his commitment to solving problems and his indefatigable energy, Ambassador McKenna has presided over a number of important achievements during his time in Washington. I have had the opportunity to work closely with Ambassador McKenna in the last year on issues important to both our countries. We have agreed that the longest undefended border in the world must remain strong and secure, but not become a barrier to travelers, businesses, and border communities in both of our great nations. Mr. Speaker, Canada is our Nation's largest trading partner, with some $1.2 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border between our two countries each day. Ambassador McKenna and I have worked together to strengthen this relationship, and to advocate for commonsense solutions that both improve border security while also facilitating trade and travel. Indeed, through his successful careers in public life, law, business, and in diplomacy, Ambassador McKenna has understood the depth and breadth of relations between Canadians and Americans. He has employed his experience, tact and plain-spoken pragmatism to ensure that the occasional difference in priorities of our two governments does not get in the way of this friendship. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ambassador McKenna for his friendship, and his service to Canada and the U.S. I wish him well on his future endeavors, and hope that we will get together again soon over a meal of fried chicken and rice pudding.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 389, a resolution celebrating the Year of the Museum. This resolution recognizes the importance of museums which have served the American public since this country was founded and include every type of institution from A, art to Z, zoo. From arboretums, botanical gardens, zoos, historic presidential homes and libraries to science centers and art and children's museums, they encourage curiosity, they provide a source of enjoyment as well as education, and they preserve our country's great history for every generation. I'm sure there is not a person among us who does not have a cherished memory of a visit to a museum. Museums are unique places in our communities. They come in every variety and size. Their collections and the ideas they share cover the broad spectrum of human endeavors-- science, history, nature and art. There is a museum to satisfy and peak the interests of everyone of us. Museums are public forums. They provide an environment rich with opportunity for intergenerational learning and sharing among children, parents, and grandparents. Museum visitors can come to know the struggles and accomplishments of different cultures and achieve a deeper understanding of their own family's, community's and country's history. But most importantly, museums are fun places to visit. I have always loved museums and have been fortunate to have a number of world-renowned museums in my own district: the Buffalo Museum of Science, the Martin House Restoration Corporation, the Italian Heritage Museum & Cultural Center of Western NY, the Baker-Cederberg Museum and Archives, the George Eastman House, Landmark Society of Western New York, the Memorial Art Gallery at the University of Rochester, Rochester Historical Society, Rochester Museum & Science Center, the Strong Museum and the Susan B. Anthony House. These museums are so diverse; clearly any person could find the perfect museum in which to explore a unique interest. But it is not just my constituents that have benefited from the presence of museums. All Americans do, because there are museums in nearly every Congressional District across this country. And they help our economy. Museums play an important role in promoting travel and tourism and driving economic development. They bring heightened local and national visibility to communities and their artists, scientists, and educators, and they spend $5.2 billion a year serving the American public. Most museums operate as small or mid-sized community institutions, offer free or reduced admissions at least one day a week, work with local schools to enhance curriculum and education of students and families, and employ paid staff and dedicated volunteers. In addition to educating and entertaining, museums undertake the immense task of preserving and protecting the more than 750 million objects in their collections, ensuring that they are publicly available to our citizens for this and future generations. H. Res. 389 recognizes ``The Year of the Museum'' as a celebration of great American cultural, history and traditions. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the vast public service provided by the museums in their own communities by supporting this resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on my side.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Budget Committee. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, on the very first day of the last session of Congress, I stood on the floor and watched the Republican majority force through a new set of House rules, rules designed to destroy the House Ethics Committee and to protect the leadership and their Members from any measure of real accountability. And ironically they called it an ethics reform package. As a result of that package we still do not have a working ethics committee today. On that day the word ``corruption'' became synonymous with Congress in the minds of many of the American people. 2005 went on to be a year defined by corruption in a way never before seen. The magnitude of the Republican culture of corruption overwhelming this House has only been exceeded by the high cost of that corruption for every man, woman and child in this country. From the Medicare legislation affecting the health of our seniors, to the safety of our troops in Iraq, to the energy bills that determine if families can afford to heat their homes during the winter and drive their cars, nothing has proved too precious to avoid being sold for a price. But despite this shameful record today, the Republican majority asks us to believe they have now seen the light and they are suddenly committed to producing an ethical Congress. And so we are opening this year with another ethics rules change. It is a reform that I support, because the stranglehold lobbyists have over our process is indeed a tremendous problem facing our Nation. The fact that there are 34,000 registered lobbyists in Washington today, 63 for each Member of Congress, demonstrates just how much power special interests wield in this Congress. And clearly, former Members of this body who lobby should not have special access to lawmakers on the floor or the gym. But let me be clear, that this rules change is so minor in relation to the magnitude of the problem that it does not amount to a drop in the ocean. In fact, I suspect it is illegal already. First, we know that they should not be here, but we have ignored that rule and done nothing to enforce it. But more importantly, shifting the blame for the rampant corruption in Washington only to lobbyists is part of an effort to avoid the central issue. Corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have done much harm to this country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be. Let me say that again. They have done a lot to harm the country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be. A true responsibility for corruption begins and ends here in this Chamber with those who pull the strings. Lobbyists are simply the symptom. The disease is here. Because after all, lobbyists are writing the bills that come out of this House because the Republican leadership wanted it that way. House rules are being ignored and our ethics process destroyed because the Republican leadership wants it that way. We now have a government that is too corrupt to sustain itself any longer, too undemocratic to even pretend to be a democracy. We simply cannot allow Band-aid packages like the one presented today to take the place of real reform. It is self-evident now that those who put America up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in a new direction. It is going to take a lot more than preventing former Members from going to the House gym to produce an ethical Congress. If we ever hope to restore true democracy to our government, it is going to take a fundamental change in the culture of this institution, one devoutly to be wished and felt and certainly a thing that we will work hard for on this side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.