Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we have before us a bill that once again solidifies the majority's insistence on putting political gain before women's health. We also have a ruling that unnecessarily governs consideration of three unrelated bills, each needing its own debate. These so-called grab-bag rules harm our institution, muddle debate, and dishonor the importance of the Rules Committee and its jurisdiction. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of a stalwart Rochesterian and a beacon in our community: Ronald Wiley, a man who dedicated his life to building the bonds on which our nation stands. A native son of Watertown, New York, Ronald graduated in 1949 from Watertown High School and attended St. Lawrence University Collegiate Center in Watertown. During the Korean War, Ronald answered his country's call by proudly serving in the U.S. Navy as a journalist. His service during the war marked the start of his career in journalism and lifelong concern for others. Attending college on the G.I. Bill, Ronald graduated from the University of Virginia in 1958 and then moved home to Watertown where he worked at the Watertown Daily Times as a reporter and later as a copy editor. While working at the Daily Times, Ronald honed the writing skills that would serve him so well for the rest of his life. In Rochester, Ronald served for 14 years as editor-in-chief of Kodak's weekly employee newspaper, Kodakery. In this capacity, he helped to lift the spirit of the Kodak family and kept them connected, informed. On top of his commitment to Kodak, Ronald was a pillar of Rochester's business and civic communities. As an officer in the International Association of Business Communicators, Ronald helped others learn the trade that he had so clearly mastered at Kodak. He was also active in the Irondequoit United Church of Christ and served for many years as an assistant scoutmaster with Boy Scout Troop 154. There is no doubt that Ronald's teaching, mentorship, and example inspired untold young people to lift their eyes to the mountaintops, inspiring them to consider the wisdom and power of nature. Together with Eva, his loving wife of 47 years, Ronald raised two children and four grandchildren. While living in Rochester, Ronald and Eva enjoyed square dancing and playing cards, particularly Hearts. Ronald and his family were avid hikers who frequently explored the Adirondack High Peaks. In fact, Ronald summited all 46 high peaks of the Adirondacks and was named an Adirondack Forty-Sixer. In tribute to Ronald's lifetime of service in Rochester and beyond, I stand to honor him today. As his family and friends mourn his passing, let this record celebrate his legacy of love, compassion, and good works. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Wiley strengthened every community he called home and his dedication to his fellow American shows us the best of our nation's soul. Ralph Waldo Emerson described the successful life like this: ``To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and to endure the betrayal of false friends. To appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.'' Surely, Ronald succeeded.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Women's Rights History Project Act, along with my upstate New York colleagues Representatives Richard Hanna, Paul Tonko, John Katko and Tom Reed. I originally worked with then-Senator Hillary Clinton to pass this bill into law in 2009, but it has not received appropriations since that time. The authorization for the project has expired, and it is vital that Congress pass this reauthorization and ensure that the women who shaped our nation's history and fought for every woman's rights are remembered and honored for generations to come. The National Women's Rights History Project will establish an auto route linking sites significant to the struggle for women's suffrage, known as the Votes for Women Trail. It will also add to the National Register of ``Places Where Women Made History,'' a variety of historic sites that were home to pivotal moments in our nation's struggle for gender equality. Finally, this Project will establish a public-private partnership network to offer financial and technical assistance for educational programs about the history of the fight for women's rights. It is fitting that we reintroduce this bill during March, which is Women's History Month. I am especially proud that it was in Rochester, New York where Susan B. Anthony fought so hard for the rights that women throughout this country rely on today. Among her many efforts, Susan B. Anthony established the Equal Rights Association to refute ideas that women were inferior to men and to fight for women's right to vote. She also fought to tear down the walls holding women back from higher education. In 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Mary Ann M'Clintock convened the first women's rights convention at Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. This event marked the beginning of a 72-year struggle for women's suffrage. During the convention, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, which set out radical notions such as women's freedom to own property, receive an education and earn fair wages. In 1880, a woman launched a brave petition to be the first female student at the University of Rochester. For almost twenty years, the petition was flatly denied--until 1898, when the University said that women would be allowed if they raised $100,000 for the school. In today's terms, that is equal to $2 million. By June of 1900 a group of women had managed to secure $40,000, and the University decided that women would be allowed to enroll if they could raise another $10,000 by September. Scrambling to reach the new goal, the women were $8,000 short a day before the deadline. With hours remaining, Susan B. Anthony stepped forward and raised $6,000 from friends and family before pledging her own life insurance policy to raise the final $2,000 and throw open the doors of higher education in Rochester. Now, more than 100 years later, the University of Rochester is home to the Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and Women's Studies--one of the pre- eminent educational institutions in the world. These are the stories of incredible courage, dedication, and unyielding belief in equality that the National Women's Rights History Project is designed to honor. The fight for women's rights and equality still continues today. It was just 93 years ago that women were finally granted the right to vote. The struggle for women's suffrage was never easy and it is vital that we honor the sacrifices and commitment of those who blazed the trail that led us here today, where a record number of women serve in the 114th Congress. Reauthorizing the National Women's Rights History Project Act will ensure that this important civil rights story is celebrated for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and reauthorize the National Women's Rights History Project.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. This bill funds Community Health Centers for two years at $7.2 billion dollars. These community health centers serve many of the newly insured people in my district. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, they have health insurance, but thanks to community health centers, they have health care. H.R. 2 also extends the CHIP program and keeps over 8 million low- income children and pregnant women in families from losing their health insurance. Lastly, H.R. 2 finally fixes the SGR, the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate. The SGR was an ill-conceived plan to control the growth in health care costs by slashing doctor pay. We were in danger of doctors dropping Medicare patients, putting seniors' access to critical medical care at risk. The yearly short-term fixes have cost us more over the years than it would have to get rid of it, so I am pleased we are finally doing the right thing today in a way that moves us toward quality health care for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a provision in H.R. 2 and how it differs from S. 178--the Senate Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (JVTA). As you know, the Senate is having a debate about a provision to make the Hyde Amendment part of permanent law and to apply it to non- taxpayer funds. As co-chair of the Pro Choice Caucus, I want to make this clear: the Senate bill creates a new Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund that would be funded--not by taxpayer dollars--but through fines imposed on defendants convicted of human trafficking, sexual exploitation and human smuggling crimes. The Hyde Amendment only applies to taxpayer dollars. Hyde Amendment restrictions have never been applied on a federal fund containing zero taxpayer dollars. This new fund is not federal dollars and therefore not eligible for Hyde. The pro-choice senators who are fighting against this expansion have my full support.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules and an extraordinary colleague.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation that would help families afford college tuition by letting undergraduate borrowers refinance their student loans at a low interest rate of 3.86 percent. That is what the families we represent need, not the education cuts in the Republican budget. To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the draconian Republican budget, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have some good economic news: the private sector has added 12 million new jobs over the last 60 months, 5 years; our national unemployment rate is down to 5.5 percent; we have reduced the deficit from 9.8 percent of our economy to nearly 3 percent; 16.4 million people now have affordable health care who didn't have it before. These are good economic indicators, and we are moving in the right direction, but there is more to do to ensure that our economy gets and stays stronger. What we can't afford to do at this critical juncture is endanger all of the progress we have made by pursuing this drastic austerity agenda, and that is what the Republican budget is. They have an almost religious commitment to slashing government to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. So they propose severe cuts to everything except the military, even though it means destroying Medicare coverage that was promised to seniors, cutting education funding that we need to help our children compete in the global economy, literally taking food out of the mouths of the poor, and snatching health insurance away from millions who now have access to affordable care coverage for the first time. Not only would the House majority raise taxes on the poor and give a $50,000 tax break to millionaires--a play that some like to call the reverse Robin Hood--but the House majority would slash funding for bridges and roads and gut funding for law enforcement and schools, double down on trickle-down economics and dynamic scoring, a failed and discredited set of policies that we know don't work. That is how the House majority wants to govern the greatest democracy on Earth, by cutting our way to prosperity. Not only is it dangerous, it is mathematically impossible. It just doesn't add up. But don't take my word for it. Here are some of the reactions to the Republican budget from the majority's allies and its own members. The American Enterprise Institute said about this budget: ``The House GOP leadership took the easy way out.'' A Republican Member and Army veteran said that this budget ``makes our country weaker.'' Another member of the House majority said: ``I am tired of seeing gimmicks in the budget process; I am tired of seeing gimmicks in the legislative process.'' Finally, summing it up nicely, one Republican Member said, ``It's all hooey.'' Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record several news reports documenting the criticisms of the GOP budget. [From CNN, March 18, 2015] House GOP Members Threatening to Take Budget Down Over Defense (By Deirdre Walsh) Washington.--A sizeable bloc of House Republicans are vowing to defeat the GOP budget that was unveiled on Tuesday, arguing it shortchanges defense programs at a time that multiple national security threats around the world means Pentagon spending should be boosted. ``As a Republican I do not want our budget to go down. But as a veteran and somebody who has served in the Army I am not going to be part of something that I believe that makes our country weaker,'' Florida GOP Rep. Tom Rooney told reporters Tuesday. Failure to pass a budget won't trigger any crisis--budget resolutions are nonbinding and essentially symbolic documents. They do set spending levels for various government agencies and outline the party's priorities for reforming entitlement programs and the tax code, but they lack the force of law. But if House Speaker John Boehner can't cobble together enough votes from his own members for a budget, he will add another embarrassing setback to a pile of failed efforts this year. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged that total GOP control of Congress meant they would prove their party can govern and showcasing a unified budget is key to that pledge. Last month, Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, got 70 House Republicans to sign a letter insisting that defense programs receive a minimum of $561 billion that was included in President Barack Obama's budget plan. Republican budget writers, however, were put in a box because of the automatic across the board spending cuts, known as sequestration, put into place by a previous budget law. Those cuts cap defense spending at $523 billion. To address concerns from defense hawks, the House Budget Committee used an accounting trick and added more than $30 billion in defense money to the ``Overseas Contingency Operations,'' an emergency fund that doesn't count toward their total spending number. On top of that money the committee created a separate $20 billion reserve fund to add more savings from other programs and promised to set both pots of money aside for defense. But multiple House Republicans told CNN the move is merely a gimmick. ``I don't think that it's fair game--I think it's fairy dust stuff,'' Rooney said. The top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, also seized on the way Republicans structured Pentagon money, saying on Wednesday the GOP budget ``plays a shameless shell game with our defense spending. It would make Enron accountants blush.'' Boehner and his lieutenants also know some conservatives won't back the measure because they want bolder reforms, but threat from Republicans who want to see bolstered defense spending is real. GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger ticked off a list of flashpoints across the globe--ISIS in the Middle East, Ukraine, Boko Haram--that weren't major threats in 2011, arguing the trend shows the need to respond to growing threats, not cut back. ``It's a totally different world we live in and I think we have to recognize that,'' he told CNN, adding he's not sure how he will vote on the current measure and hopes it will be changed. House Republican leaders also can't afford to lose more an a couple dozen of their own members on this vote, because Democrats will surely oppose the measure which repeals Obamacare and cuts food stamp and education programs. There remains hope by some in the GOP, though, that they can strike a balance that works for the majority of the caucus. But even if House Republicans figure out a way to pass this budget, the constraints on future proposals will persist until Democrats and Republicans broker a compromise to do away with the automatic cuts that they agree are unworkable for both domestic and defense programs. ``Both sides need to come together and put their grown up pants on and figure out how do we overcome this issue,'' Kinzinger said. A budget resolution brokered between the two chambers is supposed to be negotiated by April 15th so spending panels can move forward with their work.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Republican budget would force hardworking families to work harder for less. The proposal turns Medicaid into a State block grant, makes students pay more for tuition, decimates the Pell grants for college tuition, slashes food stamps, and turns Medicare into a voucher program for the future recipients, all the while keeping billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil. Today, Medicare guarantees insurance coverage for seniors, but imagine with me, if you will, a world in which Medicare is just a fixed amount voucher. Instead of insurance, your grandparent is given a set amount of money and is sent out on his or her own to negotiate with multinational companies; and if they need a medical plan that is more expensive than that voucher, the balance comes straight out of their pocket, or, if they can't afford it, they have no insurance. Not only does the budget show a clear disdain for working families, middle class families, students, and the elderly, but it was so haphazardly drafted last week that the media exposed a drafting error in the bill that revealed an additional $900 million in cuts. Imagine that, nearly a billion dollars that had been overlooked. What is more, the House majority is playing fast and loose, using budget gimmicks to violate agreed-upon spending caps in the sequestration and to fund critical long-term Department of Defense needs out of a temporary war slush fund, the overseas contingency operations account, a slush fund the use of which Republicans decried just last year for undermining the budgetary process. The Secretary of Defense, Dr. Ashton Carter, has highlighted the need for predictability in the Department's budget. He would like to know from one year to the next what is a gimmick and what is real, something that the House majority refuses to ensure. Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, says the only way that he can provide funding for the military is through stability, not through slush funds, spending caps, and budget games. This is how the majority chooses to run our government: with tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, with financial incentives for Big Oil, tax breaks for corporations that ship their jobs overseas, and tax policies that burden the people whose heads are barely above water. But, most importantly, it hurts the SNAP program, when thousands, millions of Americans go to bed hungry every night. How dare we threaten the very thing that gives them some peace of mind and some food to eat. That is also, by the way, an agriculture program that our farmers depend on to help them make a living. Mr. Speaker, let's take a different course. Let's grow the economy from the middle class out, not try to hope something will trickle down on it. Let's fix our crumbling roads and bridges, and let's invest in our kids and make it easier to go to college, not harder. Let's respect the contribution of our Nation's seniors and make certain that they have the stability that they need in their health care to make financial decisions with some degree of certainty. We could do that by adopting the Democratic alternative. And while my colleagues in the minority might be getting fatigued saying this over and over that what we have isn't just a list of numbers, it is a statement of our ideals, instead of a slash-and-burn budget that puts at risk the economic growth of the last 5 years, we propose investments in our infrastructure, in our children, in our economy, and in our future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now I think I understand it all. I believe I understand how you could lose $900 million when you are doing your budget. By what possible means do you think that we are paying $5 million for each person's health care who is on the Affordable Care Act? The rising cost of health care for the first time in 50 years is going down. But nobody ever paid $5 million for anybody's health care in a single year. It is the most atrocious thing I think I have heard on this floor. Mr. and Mrs. America, these are the people you have entrusted your Congress to. They are the people who are writing your budget. They are the people who are going to voucherize your Medicare, who are going to turn Medicaid into a block grant and help some people, maybe not. These are the people making sure that the roads and bridges are crumbling and that are going to take food out of the mouths of the poor. This is the kind of math that you are practicing over there? For heaven's sake. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who I hope is as angry as I am, a member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not, and I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the House majority has once again chosen to favor billionaires over the middle class, debunk economics over real investments, and politics over people. Democrats have a clear alternative that would keep our economy growing and ensure a strong fiscal future. Our alternative ensures that college is achievable, that jobs are available, and that health care is affordable. That is what will keep our economy on the right track. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I have introduced H.R. 1552, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2015. This legislation would preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by ending the unnecessary non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics in healthy food-animals. The discovery of antibiotics literally transformed modern medicine, but their effectiveness is now being threatened by the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Recently the World Health Organization warned that the crisis is ``so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern medicine.'' Already the CDC has told us that these superbugs cause two million infections and kill at least twenty-three thousand Americans every year. We spend twenty- to thirty-five billion dollars fighting these infections--sometimes in vain, as there are now strains of bacteria which have become completely untreatable. The scale of this problem worldwide is truly staggering--each year, seven hundred thousand people die unnecessarily and the global cost could be as high as $1.2 trillion. Unfortunately this problem is our own doing. Despite warnings from the very scientists who discovered antibiotics we have utterly failed to use them wisely. Overuse in medicine and rampant misuse in food- animal production has caused widespread resistance and led to the current crisis. Food-animal production currently uses 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. The majority of these are routinely given to healthy animals for ``growth promotion'' or ``disease prevention.'' These non- therapeutic uses are not only unnecessary, but they also create the perfect environment for bacteria to evolve resistance, resulting in antibiotic resistant superbugs. Right now, we are allowing the greatest medical advancement of the 20th century to be frittered away, in part because it's cheaper for factory farms to feed these critical drugs to animals rather than fix the stressful, overcrowded or unsanitary conditions which allow disease to spread. By the 1970's the dangers of misusing antibiotics in food-animals were well known and in 1977 the Food and Drug Administration sought to end sub-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracycline in food- animals. However, no substantive action was ever taken, antibiotic use has steadily increased and the problem is now worse than ever. The FDA's recent decision to ask pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily remove ``growth promotion'' uses from drug labels is an inadequate response which fails to address routine non-therapeutic uses, often called the disease prevention loophole. A recent analysis by the PEW Charitable Trust clearly shows that this loophole can be exploited as many drugs have overlapping approvals for disease prevention and growth promotion and can be given to animals with no limit on the duration of use. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act would phase out the use of the eight classes of medically important antibiotics that are currently approved for non-therapeutic use in animal agriculture. The bill clearly defines the term ``non-therapeutic use'' to ensure that sick animals may be appropriately treated, but that any use of medically important antibiotics outside of treatment of a sick animal is not permitted. Both the American people and the U.S. government need to give this issue the attention it demands. Unless we act now and act together to preserve the effectiveness of our current antibiotics we face a future without them. Strep throat could once again lead to fatal heart infections. Common surgeries such as having wisdom teeth removed, joint replacements and Cesarean sections would become too risky to perform. Even something as common as dressing your child's scrapes with Neosporin could no longer be able to keep an infection at bay. Protecting the public's health is one of the greatest responsibilities of this body and I urge my colleagues to stand with me to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Michael Graziano and his extraordinarily talented team at Uji Films who have created a fantastic documentary called Resistance. Michael recently joined me along with a panel of experts on antibiotic resistance for a screening of Resistance in my district of Rochester, New York, to an amazing response. The film uses microscopic footage, harrowing personal stories and expert insight to delve into the history of antibiotic resistance, starting with the mass production of antibiotics 70 years ago and tracking the rise of superbugs into the 21st Century. Resistance does a tremendous job laying out the issues at hand, explaining that eighty percent of the antibiotics sold in this country are used on the farm, mostly with healthy animals to ``prevent disease,'' and how that impacts human health and modern medicine. The World Health Organization said in a recent report that antibiotic resistance is, ``a problem so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern medicine.'' In ten years, surgeries, procedures, and illnesses that rely on antibiotics could be fatal. Pulling your teeth. Hip replacements. These could all be rendered obsolete without antibiotics. Strep throat could be fatal. We must preserve medically important antibiotics for the treatment of humans, and for sick animals. That is exactly what my bill, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, or PAMTA, would do. Tomorrow I will reintroduce that bill for the fifth time. The American people need to understand that while I am fighting every day in Congress to highlight this issue, consumers, neighbors, doctors, and parents will be the ones who turn the tide of antibiotic resistance. Citizens taking a stand and asking grocery stores like Costco or fast food chains like McDonald's and Chick-Fil-A to sell meat and poultry raised without unnecessary antibiotics has made a difference. Resistance is making a difference. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the film and the filmmakers for making an important contribution to fighting the public health crisis of our time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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