Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up two desperately needed pieces of legislation. The first would shed light on secret money in politics by requiring groups to disclose the source of the contributions they are using to fund their campaign-related activities. The second would provide $600 million in funding to combat the growing opioid epidemic. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a personal privilege and rise today with a really sad heart and take a moment to mark what is the end of an era for the Rules Committee family. This is Miles Lackey's last week as the staff director for the committee's minority, and we are sad about it indeed. The Rules Committee is a family, and the loss is personal. The Rules Committee, in my opinion, has the highest regarded staff of anybody that is on the Hill. In both the House and Senate, Miles has proved to be the gold standard for any staff wishing to make a contribution to the Congress. He has been a mentor and a colleague to anyone who asked for it. His counsel will be missed not just for the four of us on the Democratic side of the Rules Committee, but I think both staff members and all other Members alike on both sides of the aisle. Miles is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and of Yale Divinity School, and he brings a grounded, holistic vision of his work as a staff member, and the example has been a guiding force. He has the patience of Job and takes every dramatic turn of events in stride. From government shutdowns to national emergencies, Miles has always known exactly what to do. As the staff director of the Rules Committee or as Senator Dodd's chief of staff in the Senate, he made incredible contributions to legislation that has passed out of Congress during his tenure in both Chambers. From Dodd-Frank to the Affordable Care Act, it is clear that he dedicated his career to benefiting the American people with skill, intellect, and patience. There is always one more story to tell, one more hug to linger over, but there sure is no good way to say goodbye to a trusted and cherished adviser, a colleague, and a friend. There is only the deep gratitude that we feel and the legacy of the excellence that Miles leaves. Thank you, dear friend, for everything. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Rules resolution. Expressing the gratitude of the Committee on Rules to Mr. Miles M. Lackey, the Committee's Democratic staff director, for his service to the Committee, the House, and the Nation on the occasion of his retirement from the House of Representatives. Whereas Mr. Miles M. Lackey has served the Nation in both the legislative and executive branches over the course of nearly three decades; Whereas he has served the Committee on Rules for most of his career, first as an associate of the Rules Committee staff, then later as senior advisor to the Chair and both majority and minority staff director; Whereas during his career, he has brought competence and dignity to each office he has held; Whereas his advice and counsel are sought by both Members and staff alike; Whereas he has always endeavored to ensure the effective operation of the Committee, even when the majority and minority differed on policy or process; Whereas his good humor and steady demeanor will be missed: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Committee on Rules expresses its profound gratitude to Mr. Miles M. Lackey for his exemplary service; and (2) the clerk of the Committee is hereby directed to prepare this resolution in a manner suitable for presentation to Mr. Lackey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule that joins two unrelated measures, first, to continue the House majority's overreach into the District of Columbia's local budgetary affairs; second, to double down on an outdated energy policy and pursue a partisan path instead of the bipartisan Senate plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have today an opportunity to fund groundbreaking, cutting-edge research all across the country, to protect our precious environment, and to support the Army Corps of Engineers. Yet the addition of several harmful, dangerous policy riders will inhibit those goals and have no place in the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, every year, the House comes together to allocate funds for programs across the country. From keeping our waters clean to managing our nuclear arsenal, they all need funding. Under H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, some programs see shortfalls and others windfalls. Balancing these competing priorities is a herculean effort, and I want to commend Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur because they have worked so much in tandem to help bring good bills to the floor. First, the bill provides robust funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, and includes strong funding for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which keeps our Nation's ports and harbors dredged, maintained, and operational. As the cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I know the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is an essential component to keeping local economies on the shores of the Great Lakes thriving. We owe a great deal to the Great Lakes. We are, along with Canada, the protectors of 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet, providing drinking water for both Canadians and United States citizens. We owe it to the great thing that we have inherited there, called the Great Lakes, to protect them. Also included in the bill is increased funding for much-needed nuclear cleanup. The bill provides funding to clear contamination from past nuclear weapons research and production activities, creating usable land and adding to the safety and well-being of our communities. However, I do remain concerned about the funding levels for our Nation's scientific research. We should be meeting the President's requests, and even adding to them for research funding. The agencies that are covered by this bill are not adequate to really meet the needs of our Nation's scientific research and help us to make up for lost ground and reclaim our global leadership, not pulling on the reins. One of those programs funded is in my hometown of Rochester, New York. We are a photonics hub, Mr. Speaker--one of the best in the world--and we have recently been named an innovative manufacturing facility in Rochester. Let me tell you what kind of excellent research that we are doing up there and what great things we are already capable of doing. About 12 engineers, who had previously worked at Eastman Kodak on 35- year-old repurposed Kodak equipment, made the components of the night vision goggles that took down Osama bin Laden. That same small company with 250 employees also made the laser beams that the Navy SEALs used to take down the Somali pirates holding Captain Phillips. That was on 35-year-old equipment. Imagine what they could do if we were able to help them get new machines. Rochester is also famous with Eastman Kodak because the Norden bombsight was made there, which was a great contributor into the winning of World War II. It is awfully important that we recognize what has happened there now and make sure that we can keep it going. In many cases it is falling apart, and we need much more help for it. I am grateful for the money for the laser lab because it not only is moving research along, but it is responsible for checking on the supplies that we have of nuclear weapons to make sure that they are in good condition without having to do live testing. There are bright spots in the bill, but there are some harmful policy riders that stand in the way of strong investments. These policy riders include one that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act by locking in a widely acknowledged state of confusion about the scope of the law's pollution control programs. While it sounds nice to let everybody just do all of the runoffs that they want into the Great Lakes, the algae pollution problem caused by runoff of pesticide control and other things that are in the water have caused us a great deal of pain up there. That is not a very good idea either in stewardship or for our future. But the runoff of pesticides and other things that they do certainly needs more attention than we are getting. I think in this bill we are going in the wrong direction on that. Another rider would prevent the Corps from using funds to regulate industry waste, locking in loopholes for polluters, and leaving many of the waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. We know better than that, too. We know that it is not smart. Remember, many of those are the water that we drink. Also, I know that my colleague mentioned the one that he liked, the highly partisan and controversial rider that would allow guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers land. Given the number of Americans killing each other on a daily basis with guns--and one week about 2 weeks ago, four toddlers, who got ahold of guns that were unsecured, killing themselves--more guns on more lands is not my idea of the way that we should be looking at it. I am very much concerned that we don't want to live in a country--that I think we are becoming--where people can leave home to go to work, or to the theater, or to school, and you don't have the assurance, as we all grew up with, that you are going to be safely coming back home. Guns are a descendant of pioneers. The idea of having everybody have a gun--there are 330 million Americans and 320 million guns--that seems to me to be a pretty one-sided equation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up comprehensive legislation that provides the resources needed to help the families in the city of Flint, Michigan, recover from the water crisis. The Families of Flint Act, authored by Mr. Kildee, would provide for long-term investments in infrastructure and care for children affected by the crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 194 and 195. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on both.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 182. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Stated against:

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 180 and 181. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on both.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the colleagues who have requested time have not shown up. I am prepared to close if Ms. Foxx is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the majority intends to pass a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Department of Labor's recent rulemaking requiring financial advisers who provide retirement investment advice to abide by a fiduciary standard, meaning that they must act in the best interests of their clients, which seems perfectly legitimate to me. That is right. The House majority is disapproving of financial advisers acting in the best interests of their clients. Despite the growing importance of individual workers and retirees to obtain sound investment advice, many financial advisers are still not legally required to meet the fiduciary standard of acting in their clients' best interests but, instead, are required only to meet a lower ``suitability'' standard. This creates a conflict of interest where advisers are permitted to promote investments that maximized their own returns rather than their clients' returns as long as the investments were still ``suitable'' for their clients. That means a small few--and a very small few--unscrupulous financial advisers have been legally permitted to steer clients towards financial products that maximize the advisers' profits through higher fees and commissions even if investments that would produce greater returns for the clients are available. Few financial advisers, I am sure, are taking advantage of their clients in their saving for retirement. Some experts, however, feel that this rule is necessary. In fact, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the cost to American retirees is $17 billion annually. That is no small sum, and I think it does cry out for attention. It is absurd that, due to loopholes in the current system, retirees do not have a legal right to expect that their financial advisers will act in their best interests. When you visit your doctor, you have the legal right to expect that he or she will prescribe whatever treatment is in your best interest. You shouldn't have to guess whether or not your financial adviser is following the same fiduciary standard. The Labor Department's final rule will close these loopholes, protect workers' savings, and ensure that financial advisers act in their clients' best interests. The final rule is the result of a thoughtful, thorough, and transparent multiyear process that stands in stark contrast to the majority's decision to rush to judgment and to overturn this rule at a record, unheard-of pace. The majority marked up the resolution, H.J. Res. 88, only 13 days after the final rule had been published. So, in 13 days, it understood that it was totally unnecessary despite the $17 billion lost to clients. This is far shorter than the 55 days that other committees wait, on average, to ensure that there is ample time to fully understand the impact of a final rule. In its rush to judgment, the majority has been blinded by its ideological opposition to any action taken by the Obama administration and has missed the many changes that have left industry leaders optimistic, including many of the major financial houses and many of the people whose livelihoods are in this kind of advising. The majority is ignoring the two important protections that this rule will provide to American workers who are trying to save for their retirements. The first is peace of mind, and the second is to make sure that everything is done in their interests. Mr. Speaker, all of us are sent here to work in the best interests of the American people, not to shield financial companies. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval resolution. What is more, in yet another grab bag rule that joins two unrelated measures under a single rule, the Republicans are proposing another misguided bill to meddle in the District of Columbia's local affairs. The majority has already tried to overturn the District's marijuana, gun, and abortion laws, and now it intends to rewrite D.C.'s education laws in an attack on the District of Columbia's right to home rule. The D.C. voucher program exempts students from the protection of Federal civil rights laws that apply to public schools--why in the world would we want to do that to them?--and federally funded programs that go with those civil rights laws protections. Under the voucher program, the Federal funding is considered assistance to the voucher student and not to the school; therefore, the voucher program is not considered a federally funded program. The program is exempt from titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; from title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972; from the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974; from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and from titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. I appreciate that we are not doing anything here that is really going to affect the government in any way. Undoubtedly, again, this will be a one-House bill, and we have wasted a week's worth of money--about $24 million--that it takes to run the House. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hardworking Americans deserve solid advice about how to save for retirement, not conflicted guidance from financial counselors. The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is the product of thoughtful, long-term planning and research because the estimate is that $17 billion a year is lost to this industry. I urge my colleagues to support the rule by voting ``no'' on this rule we have before us. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would provide desperately needed funding to combat the Zika virus. We can't put off when the Zika virus is going to arrive. We make no appointments with it. It shows up, and the devastation it produces is well known. We must not in the Congress of the United States turn our backs on this impending problem facing the United States. It is already here, and I heard just this morning that this summer they are expecting quite a lot of infection to spread. The administration requested this funding more than 2 months ago, and it is reckless to delay the response to this crisis any longer. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes here talking about precisely what has been going on in this Congress. Well, 3 or 4 weeks ago the Rules Committee passed out to the House of Representatives three measures. One was to stop all class action lawsuits. One was to damage the Clean Water Act. The third one was that no Federal agency would any longer be allowed to do regulations. It would be done by a group of people set up to do that. I use that illustration a lot because it shows what we are doing here in the House. Anybody who is familiar with sheet music--and that does go back a long time--when you are playing the piano, do you remember it used to said ``vamp till ready'' and you would continue playing until the singer would start to sing? We have been waiting here for a very long time for the singer to start to sing. We have no budget. We don't exactly know where we are going here. The Zika virus is bearing down on us. We have crumbling infrastructure that everybody is worried about. Kids are still drinking lead in Flint, Michigan. But that is not the only place. In almost every city of the old cities in the Northeast, they still have brick water conduits and wood. Believe that. The city that I represent has some very, very old pipes as well. So the schools in my district--and I am sure in all the rest of your districts--are finding out that there is lead in the water in their schools as well. Well, we are going to mess around here with things that happen. And then, when Zika comes and we are not ready, I hope that we will--that we are sitting in this room with people who could do something about it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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