Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman. Let me introduce the previous question. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act, next month undergraduate students across the country will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. If my Republican colleagues want to talk about debt priority, this should be a part of the dialogue. To discuss the proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The fact that this Chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources to the consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our Nation on the road to default is regretful. The fact that this legislation puts the economic interests of China before paying our soldiers' salaries and providing benefits to our veterans is a disgrace. The plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. Instead, it simply wastes another week of valuable time and the $24 million that it costs to run this House of Congress for a week and moves us that much closer to yet another downgrade in our Nation's credit rating, something that had never happened until this majority assumed control of the House. And now it is actually possible the majority would lead us to the second downgrade of the Nation's credit over the course of 2 short years. On May 19, our Nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency measures would be put into place to delay default. We've seen this film before, and we know how the movie ends--a twisted plot with terrible consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. I urge my colleagues not to walk down that road again. 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 urge my colleagues most enthusiastically to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I would like to see this bill withdrawn. 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 ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the reprehensible Mother's Day gift-- more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick's discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA. Their discovery launched a field of inquiry that explained how DNA encoded biological information and how that information is duplicated and inherited. This field of study has led to untold scientific advances in the past 60 years. I also rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project. This month, ten years ago, an international consortium of scientists led by the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Department of Energy announced the successful sequencing of an entire human genome, the genetic blueprint that makes each of who we are. The past ten years have seen a revolution in biomedical research, sparked by the completion of the Human Genome Project. With the availability of a compendium of all our genes, scientists have been able to link diseases to the genes that cause them, learn about how those diseases progress, develop therapies to stop them, and ultimately improve the health and welfare of the American people. We now sit at the cusp of a new era in medicine, genomic medicine, where we can use a person's genetics to target therapies for their specific illness. Genomic medicine will allow us to give the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. These advances in healthcare would not have been possible without the Human Genome Project. Although genetic information can be enormously valuable to patients and their doctors, it also has the potential to be abused. In 1995, knowing that these scientific advances were coming and that people would have fears about how their personal information might be used, I introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). GINA protects people from losing their health insurance or their job based simply upon their genetic makeup. More importantly, it alleviates people's fear of participating in research studies that benefit all of us through the advancement of medicine, because they know the results cannot be used to discriminate against them. Although it took us 14 years to get GINA passed into law, every step of the battle was worthwhile, as evidenced by the tremendous progress medicine has made since the completion of the Human Genome Project. Not only did the Human Genome Project give us insights into human health, it also fueled two decades of remarkable economic growth. The past decade has seen great advancements in the technology necessary to decipher a genome. Sequencing the first human genome cost over $1 billion dollars and took 6-8 years to complete. Today, it costs less than $5,000 and can be done in 2-3 days. These advances have been made possible because federal investment in research has been translated into commercial technology by U.S. entrepreneurs and companies. According to a recent study, each dollar of federal money that was invested in the Human Genome Project resulted in $141 of economic activity, resulting in more than $796 billion dollars of economic impact and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the last two decades. These figures underscore the essential nature of federal research and development in driving U.S. innovation. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this opportunity to designate April 25th as ``DNA Day'', when we honor the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project, the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA, and all of the remarkable advancements our scientific community has made to the health of our nation's people.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today, as I have ever since we started this term in January, to talk about the lack of work that this House of Representatives has produced and how absolutely devastating it is to the public and how angry they are that week after week we do absolutely nothing here of any importance. One-House bills--this week, I think, is a prime example of that. We came in, went into the Rules Committee, put a rule that we knew would not go to the Senate, and we knew the President would veto it. But we spent time on it until suddenly some groups got very angry about it and said, Well, you'd better not vote for that. It was pulled off the floor yesterday after we'd done the rule. And everybody who voted for the rule is already on record that they wanted that bill to pass. I think that's important. If they were trying to escape making some conservative groups mad, they've done that already. But Frank Pallone, Representative Pallone from New Jersey, who was managing that bill for the Democrats, got no notice at all that the bill was not going to be taken up, and was standing here almost open- mouthed when he found out he had nothing to do. Now this bill we have here today could have been done on suspension without any question. There's nothing here--helium. This whole thing is filled with hot air. And the sequestration--I've said and said as recently as yesterday that Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee three times, and four times he has tried to get a bill on the floor which would take away sequestration and would provide all of the money by other means, sensitive ways to cut, that sequestration is going to take. But no, he didn't have a chance to do it. So now we're going to worry about airplanes, which is important because I live in a district that does not necessarily have the best flight schedules, but I'm also concerned about the cancer patients in this country who are not getting their shots because of sequestration. I'm worried about the at least 70,000 young kids who have been cut out of Head Start because of sequestration. The answer for us here is to make Van Hollen in order for tomorrow and take away sequestration and follow his bill, and we'll get the same amount of money.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Sequestration was an awful thing. The whole idea of it made absolutely no sense. And it was so stupid that I think that most Members in this House really thought they'd never see it; that nobody in here would be dumb enough to do that. Mr. McGovern and I were smart enough to vote against it, weren't we, Jim? So if you voted for it, it's your bill. But let me tell you, we need to get rid of sequestration. We have a chance to do that tomorrow. Obviously for the optics of the thing, we have to stay here and do something because we haven't done anything this whole week. If we're going to do something, make it meaningful. Let's take away sequestration. Let's get people back to work. The people who are on unemployment who are barely making it, poor souls, because they can't find a job because the economy is so bad, are having that cut as well. We have done enormous harm with this folly, and we have an opportunity to heal it. Let Van Hollen's bill come to the floor tomorrow. In a bipartisan way, let's discuss that with our leadership and your leadership, bring that out here, and bring this thing to a close. What we're suffering now and what people are seeing now with flight delays is only a small piece of it. Every day it's going to get worse. And we will rue the day we had all of these opportunities with Mr. Van Hollen to get rid of it, and certainly we will rue the day if we don't make it in order for tomorrow when we're apparently trying to make work.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. We begin this week the way we've begun every week since January: spinning our wheels. As we speak, sequestration is hitting communities across our country. Flight delays have started, Head Start programs are turning away children, and unemployment benefits are being curtailed. Despite the calls from me and all my Democratic colleagues to stop the sequestration, the majority refuses to act. In fact, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Representative Van Hollen, has come four times to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would repeal sequestration, but the majority has rejected it every single time. The majority has also left the job of passing a budget unfinished. With budgets passed by both the Senate and the House, it is now time to finish the job, and for the majority that constantly calls for regular order and concerns itself with no Senate budget, they now refuse to appoint the conferees. And they must, if we're going to get the budget. Instead of taking meaningful action on these two important issues, the majority is proposing a bill that is nothing more than a political gimmick. As everyone knows, there's no chance that the Senate will consider this bill. Even if it did, the President's senior advisers have stated that they will recommend the President veto the bill. In the short history of the 113th Congress, I have been repeatedly dismayed that the leadership of this Chamber has refused to bring forth meaningful legislation that has any chance of becoming law; and today is a telling example of the majority's failure to lead. In news reports earlier this morning, we were told that today's bill, dubbed by reporters as ``CantorCare,'' may even be pulled before it gets a vote. One Member of the majority was purported to say that today's bill does nothing but shift money from a program he doesn't support to another program he doesn't support. And, indeed, given the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, it seems incongruous to me that they are now here today with great bleeding-heart concerns about the people with previous conditions that keep them from being insured. So given the multiple reports of dissent within the majority, I have to ask, If no one supports this bill, then what are we doing this afternoon except, as I pointed out earlier, what we do every week? Even if we continue to move forward on the bill, it is already clear the legislation is solely designed for political gain. For while the majority claims that they want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, their intent is clear: they want to repeal the law. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee where she was criticized by GOP Senators for using her legal authority to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As Secretary Sebelius replied in her testimony, Congress' failure to pass a budget has forced her to take the independent action, which she's allowed to do, in order to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It's as simple as that. In the face of an unproductive Congress, Secretary Sebelius has done everything she can to provide the lifesaving health care to the American people. While reporting on Secretary Sebelius' testimony, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein explained the majority's approach towards the Affordable Health Care Act. In part, Mr. Klein wrote: ``Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on ObamaCare, it goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part, by refusing to authorize the needed funds,'' as they did in this case. I think it was $1.5 billion. ``Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014. In other words, step one: create problems for ObamaCare. Step two: blame ObamaCare care for the problems. Step three: political profit.'' The legislation before us is little more than a continuation of these games. If the majority were making a serious attempt to expand health care coverage, they wouldn't be funding their proposal with money from a different program in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the majority wouldn't be removing $4 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is a fund that is already helping States research ways to reduce instances of cancer, obesity, and heart disease. Preventive health measures are vital to reducing the cost of health care in the United States because we know it is always cheaper to prevent disease than to treat it. In an age where more than 33 percent of our population is overweight or obese, when heart disease is the number one cause of death and the number of diabetes cases continue to grow, including children, gutting our Nation's only Federal preventive health program is not a responsible budget decision; it is simply an underhanded attack to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one program at a time. Finally, the majority's newfound concern for people who are uninsured because of preexisting conditions might be more believable if they had allowed one of the numerous commonsense amendments presented to the Rules Committee to come to the floor. Among the amendments were responsible proposals to cover Americans with preexisting conditions by ending tax breaks for Big Oil, ending subsidies for owners of corporate jets, increasing taxes on cigarettes--a preventive health measure in its own right. Proposals like these would expand health care to those who need it while protecting the preventive health measures included in the Affordable Care Act. It is truly unfortunate that, in yet another restrictive process executed by the majority, these amendments were denied a vote on the House floor. The majority and the press have made it clear that today's bill is not a serious effort, but a political gimmick that has no chance of becoming law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we will be doing, as I said, a previous question amendment to this rule to hold a vote on the Put America Back to Work Act, and I would like to yield now 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 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as it takes me to read this message. It needs to be answered, and I want everybody in America to listen up. You've been told it's a job-killing bill and that it has caused all this grief. Let me say: Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the United States has added more than 6 million private sector jobs. The health care industry alone, which many opponents of the law predicted would face job-killing new regulation, has added more than 750,000 jobs. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time? I have none, and I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record the Democratic amendments that were disallowed last night from the Rules Committee. In closing, Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot today, but I think probably one of the most important things for America to know--because you hear constantly how many jobs this bill is going to be killing--is the fact that we have produced 6 million new jobs, 750,000 in health care alone. So the most important thing we can do for Americans with preexisting conditions, which is the subject today, and for every American seeking quality and affordable health care is to support the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the proposal put forward by the majority today is an attempt to dismantle a crucial part of that important law. Summary of Democratic Amendments Not Made In Order by the Rules Committee for H.R. 1549--Helping Sick Americans Now Act (Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors) Listed in Alphabetical Order--Prepared April 24, 2013 Amendment #4 Sponsor: Capps (CA) Description: Removes the public health and prevention trust fund as a pay-for and instead pays for the bill by ending the section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas production. Amendment #5 Sponsor: Green, Gene (TX) Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by requiring a minimum term and a remainder interest greater than zero for new Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs) Amendment #10 Sponsor: Horsford, Steven (NV) Description: Requires the HHS Secretary to transfer all of the monies in the Fund for the next four fiscal years to the PCIP program except those monies from the fund that are used for reducing health disparities among minority populations. Amendment #1 Sponsor: Pallone (NJ) Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program that the underlying bill does, but is paid for through a 4 cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes. Amendment #2 Sponsor: Pallone (NJ) Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by continuing the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by increasing the per-barrel amount that oil companies are required to pay into the fund by four cents. Amendment #3 Sponsor: Schakowsky (IL) Description: Extends funding for reopening enrollment under the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program (PCIP) Madam 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. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor and privilege to recognize and commemorate the 65th anniversary of the State of Israel's independence. Sixty-five years ago, America became the first nation to recognize Israel, an event that symbolizes the closeness of the relationship between our two countries and our two peoples. Since its founding in 1948, the Jewish state has faced many challenges, and America has been proud to be at Israel's side to meet these challenges. Our nation's ongoing commitment to Israel is unparalleled and I have been proud to spend my career in Congress working to promote the many economic, political, and cultural and security ties that bind our nations together. On this day, Israel has much to celebrate and be proud of. Their nation and people have been leaders in the development of groundbreaking and transformative technology affecting millions of people around the globe. Israelis have led the world in scientific research and advancements in medicine and have produced ten Nobel laureates in their short history. They have also built a world-class economy based in large part on their remarkable ability to educate their citizens and encourage freethinking and an entrepreneurial spirit While the Middle East continues to face challenges, our nation is comforted that Israel stands as a stable model for democracy in the region. The United States also stands ready and willing to help our strongest ally continue to meet the many challenges it faces in the region while working to promote peace and freedom in Israel and the Middle East. I look forward to the day when Israel and her neighbors can enjoy a prosperous and secure peace and will continue to do all that I can to make that a reality. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing all Israelis a happy independence day and affirming America's resolute commitment to the future success and stability of the State of Israel.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all. This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy is only getting worse. Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data, their predictions are beginning to come true. With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately, such expectations don't even come close. Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to waste. The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans back to work and to help families pay their bills. Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority, small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days. In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or ``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area. Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved. Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here today, so here we are. During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of this country. I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work. But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here is something they cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the sequester, and creating American jobs. I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave