Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that, while I did not make a Federal case out of it here, I deeply regret that my colleague has disparaged the President of the United States. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)--I wish I could give him an hour and 40 minutes to counter what we have heard, but unfortunately I can only give him 3--the Democratic whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to finally let the House vote on Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to replace the sequester with a sort of balanced deficit reduction plan that bipartisan panels of experts have all recommended. To discuss this bill, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the House Committee on the Budget.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers. If not, I am ready to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Mr. Speaker, in closing, as my Democrat colleagues and I have stated, instead of proposing a clean and noncontroversial continuing resolution, today the majority wishes to bring a proposal to the floor that would defund ObamaCare--their favorite--and prioritize bond payments to China in the event of financial default. This type of legislative maneuver unnecessarily injects partisanship and politics where it does not belong. With time running out on the fiscal year, we have to put politics aside and come together to keep the government open and serving the American people. To that end, I want to state to all of my colleagues in their offices--or wherever they may be--who are preparing to come over and vote: this vote on this previous question may be one of the most important votes that you have ever taken. All of us, while we were at home during our district work period, heard over and over and over again from businesspeople, from hospitals, from schools--from everybody--that the sequester was ruining them. We have visited this plague upon them, and we can take it away. We can do it now. I will remind you that this CR continues the sequester. Let's take this opportunity we have now with this previous question, and everybody vote ``no'' on it on both sides, please. The simple thing that will happen here is we can vote on Mr. Van Hollen's proposal, which he just explained. It not only replaces the money that the sequester would cut, but we get more deficit reduction from Mr. Van Hollen's proposal than we get from the sequester. Every one of us who fails to vote ``no'' so that we can do that, which is the least of our responsibilities here, ought to have to explain it every single day to our constituents as to why we did not want to remove that awful burden which we inflicted. I am sure that every one of us--I'm certainly guilty of it myself--told our constituents back home that the House would never do that, that it was too dumb to be believed. But no. Now that we've done it, we like it-- but you don't see the consequences. Dr. Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, says that we are losing our scientists and that we are losing our research edge as we know we are falling further and further behind in education, in jobs, in the future of this country. We've failed to invest anything in our future. We are living with crumbling roads, crumbling infrastructure-- everything around us--but the uncertainty overrides it all: What next? What does this mean for me? Will I get to keep my job? Am I going to have to lay off all of those employees? How can I run the FBI when people are out on furlough? Why in the world would we put our people through this disgraceful charade here simply because we made a mistake? We have an opportunity now by voting ``no'' on the previous question, which would simply allow Mr. Van Hollen to get a vote on his measure. For heaven's sakes, please do that. 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, with all of my heart, I urge everybody to vote ``no.'' I want you to vote ``no,'' too, Mr. Speaker. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. The underlying bill is not as important to me as getting this sequester out of the way. Vote ``no'' on this at least, whatever you do. I yield back the balance of my time.

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, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is a set of ethical guidelines, created in the wake of judicial scandals, to protect public confidence in the judiciary. Yet shockingly, the Code of Conduct applies to all federal judges except those on the Supreme Court, our nation's most important legal institution. In just the last four years, Supreme Court Justices have been engaged in ethically dubious conduct at least eight times--conduct that is explicitly forbidden among all other federal justices. Yet, because the Supreme Court does not adhere to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, they have granted themselves immunity from the standards of behavior that apply to every other justice in the land. The guidelines contained in the Code exist to ensure that the public has faith that judicial decision-making is based on the facts and the law, not politics and outside interests. Their intent is to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by demonstrating that those meting out justice are scrupulous in staying free of even the appearance of outside influence or bias. Public confidence in the judiciary suffers when our nation's highest court appears not to be governed by the same clear ethics rules that apply to all other judges. The Supreme Court's greatest assets are its integrity and the public trust, yet the Court continues to operate without a binding code of ethics. It is troubling that the highest court in the land does not follow the same standards as the other federal courts, and it is long past time to address this shortcoming. To that end, today I am introducing the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013, legislation to apply the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to justices of the Supreme Court. Formal adoption of the Code of Conduct by the Court would begin to restore the public's faith in our judicial system and help ensure the integrity of our country's highest court. Many of the Supreme Court justices were required to follow these basic rules when they were district or court of appeals judges. Accordingly, adoption of an identical Code by the members of the Supreme Court should not unduly burden members of that Court and certainly would not serve as any impediment to their complete and robust service on the Court. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that will help protect the public's confidence in the integrity of our nation's judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the final week that the House will be in session before we begin our recess. I don't like to call it recess since we work as hard at home, but this is probably the last time we'll get together until we come back in the fall. As the clock runs out on another legislative session, we are voting for the 40th time to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. By now, we all know how today's debate will end. The majority will pass the bill, the Senate will refuse to take it up, and we will have wasted, again, the public's time and their patience. And then they will adjourn for August recess, only to return in September with issues like jobs, immigration reform, and sequestration left unsolved, as they are today. The other night, I was watching comedian Stephen Colbert on his program. He was talking about the number of times we've voted to try to repeal health care. He had a good idea for the Republicans. He said, Obviously, you're not going to be able to do it if you say you're going to repeal health care, so he suggested that a bill be written that is titled, ``This is Not Another Repeal of ObamaCare, We Swear, But Don't Look Inside It, Just Sign It Act.'' If you put that act out, maybe you would get somewhere with it. Some speculated the GOP is desperate to get rid of this law because they know it is working and will work better as it gets fully implemented and they know they have firmly planted their feet on the wrong side of history once again. I can't comment on their motivation, but it's clear that millions of Americans are using this law because of the incredible benefits that it provides. I was really stunned by the last speaker on the 1-minutes this morning talking about Maryland, because we just got the statistics from Maryland. The health plans are better than ever. Just last week, Maryland announced their rates are going to be among the lowest in the country, and not, as he said, a 20 percent increase. Nevada announced a young adult will be able to purchase a catastrophic health insurance plan for less than $100. And I said last week, when we had the other vote to get rid of health care, New York had just come out with wonderful news on the exchanges. Seventeen insurers had applied to provide insurance in the State of New York, and it would cause those premiums to fall by more than 50 percent. And we join 11 other States with the same kind of news. It's happening all over America. For those States that decided not to do an exchange and are going to let the government do it, fine. I think they'll do okay there. Maybe we'll move closer to single-payer, which is what we should be doing. Sixty-two days from now, those new exchanges will open their doors and they're going to provide millions of Americans with secure and affordable health care. For the very first time, insurers are going to be barred from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition and barred from placing lifetime and yearly limits on an individual's health care. They are sending checks back to customers all over the country, because the new law requires them to spend 80 percent of the premium dollar on health care. And since far less than 80 percent is spent, many companies are doing rebates, and people are getting those checks. I really can't go on much further without talking about what it is we are doing here today. I think it's somewhat historical, but it may not be the first time. It's probably not. I have not had the pleasure before of doing a rule which consists of five bills with very little in common being stuffed into one because the House, basically, imploded yesterday. I've done all of the rules on health care repeal. If I had a machine, I could just press ``repeat'' and walk out of the room and do the same speech over and over again. The other day I asked Dr. McDermott, who's a psychiatrist, ``What do you call someone or one group that does the same thing over and over and over again, anticipating a different result?'' and he gave me the psychiatric definition for that. We all know that today's vote is not a single thing except another cynical attempt to score political points. As we go to our districts this August, the question is whether or not the majority will double down on their failed agendas in September and continue the irresponsible attempts to repeal the health care law. If they do, they will be escalating their brinksmanship to a new level and risking a government shutdown simply because they don't want to compromise. Already, as you know, Members of the majority are threatening to shut down the government if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed. That does show kind of an act of desperation, doesn't it? In fact, a dozen Republican Senators have signed a letter vowing to vote against a continuing resolution--that we have to have because nobody got their work done--that funds the Affordable Care Act, and more than 60 House Republicans have called on the majority's leadership to defund the Affordable Care Act in any continuing resolution that comes before the House. Instead, I want the majority to make a change here. My fellow Kentuckian, Hal Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, yesterday made it plain to everybody that this is all a hoax. He talked about sequestration and the impossibility of bringing a transportation bill that scarcely has enough money to maintain what roads we have, and it imploded on the floor when nobody would vote for it. While we're out on recess, please think about this, and think about what sequestration is doing in the United States. I hope you read former Senator Byron Dorgan's article in The New York Times talking about the devastation on the Indian reservations because of the money that we owe them by treaty, which is being lost through sequestration; the people who are doing health research at the National Institutes of Health, where they tell me in the human genome project that they are very close to finding a cure for cancer, but now they have to stop it. As a scientist, I can promise you, you do not turn research off and on like a faucet. And think of all the people who can't get their treatment because of sequestration. Think of all the people who live in this area and work for this government and keep this government working, many of them two members of the family on the Federal payroll, who have suffered as much in that family as a 40 percent pay cut. And the bills that are in here today, again, saying to the Federal employees: We don't value you for anything. We've already passed legislation in here that hurts their pensions. They haven't had a raise in 4 years. What we're saying now, if this bill passes today, is that they can be fired without cause and that their phones will be tapped by any citizen in the United States. I really am concerned about what's going on here. We talk about too much regulation. I want to close with something I mentioned last night at the Rules Committee because I realize most Americans don't know it. But let me talk about under-regulation. In the food market, chickens are inspected 100 at a time--100 a minute going through the conveyor belt. They're covered with barnyard debris and feces and whatever else. One person is inspecting them as 100 of them go by. So what's going to happen now they have decided to regulate? They will have to do 140 chickens a minute. Recently, The Washington Post had a front-page story that stunned me to the core. It said that a young food inspector, working for the government, his lungs bled out and he died from the chemicals that he inhaled from his chicken inspection days. Now, after the chicken goes through a conveyor belt, it goes into a bath of cool water and Clorox. Then it's ready to be packaged and all plastic-ed up and have it for dinner. Is that overregulation? For heaven's sakes, give me more regulation than that. But I want to urge my colleagues today to vote ``no'' on this rule, the underlying legislation, and quit this farce in the House of Representatives. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a second to say another case of un-regulation is the fertilizer plant blowing up in West, Texas, that had not been inspected in over 20 years. 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. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer on our side an amendment to the rule that allows the House to consider the SAFE Bridges Act, which funds emergency repairs and creates countless American jobs. We are about to go into a 5-week break; and so far, the Congress has done nothing to end sequestration or to create jobs for the country. My amendment will prevent the House from going home until we have done the job we were sent here to do. To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I shall close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we speak, sequestration is hitting very hard in communities all across the country. Federal employees are furloughed; important investments in science, technology, public health, and defense are being curtailed; children are being shut out of Head Start. Meanwhile, the majority has repeatedly refused to repeal the sequester and have failed to pass a single job bill creation into law. The American people need us to stop these political games and get down to work creating jobs and rebuilding this economy. Now is not the time to adjourn Congress, and we should not leave here until we have produced real results for the American families that are truly struggling to get by. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.