Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm sorry, Mr. Levin. I don't have any more time. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question at the end of the debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help that they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language and to substitute the bipartisan Senate approach. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 10 seconds to say that I said in my opening statement that this program has already yielded 39,000 jobs, on its way to 60,000, which will not be able to be met because you are using this as the offset. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who suffered great damage in the hurricane.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because our colleagues in the Republican majority have failed. They failed the most basic responsibility of this institution, as my colleague has mentioned, to pass regular and routine bills to keep the government's doors open, to keep retirement checks in the mail, and vital government services available to the American people. In a few days the fiscal year will end; and without a stopgap measure, funding for essential government services will run out. Despite 9 months of claims from the Republican majority that things have changed and despite a pledge to America that promised a different Washington, and despite endless calls for a regular appropriations process, not a single appropriations bill has been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year which begins October 1. Throughout this failed process, the majority has blamed everyone but themselves. They have pointed fingers at President Obama, complained about our colleagues in the Senate, and blamed the Washington status quo that they say they can't control. Throughout the process, the one group of people they won't lay responsibility with is themselves. After 9 months with not a single bill successfully making its way through Congress, finger-pointing rings hollow. Not only has no appropriations bill been enacted, but half of the necessary appropriations bills haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote. The majority controls this body and has used their powers to pursue sideshow legislation and dangerous games of default, but they can't schedule a vote for the most fundamental pieces of legislation that we consider every year. As I stand here today to vote on a billion-dollar Band-Aid that will allow us to scrape by until November, the hope is by November the majority will be able to do the job they failed to do all year. Growing up, every child hopes for such a homework extension. By the time we are elected to Congress, however, we should know that our work must be handed in on time. Sadly, today's legislation isn't even the biggest failure of leadership that we are facing in the House. If the press reports are accurate, we may be headed for an even bigger failure in November. In recent days, reports have surfaced that the majority plans to fund the entire Federal Government with one massive, trillion-dollar omnibus bill. This bill would explicitly break a promise that the Republican majority made to the American people. In the Pledge to America, their leadership included a goal entitled ``advance legislative issues one at a time.'' In the document they explain, ``we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will pass major legislation one issue at a time.'' During a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in 2010, Speaker Boehner affirmed the need to consider appropriations legislation one bill at a time, saying he wanted to do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills. On the eve of assuming the majority in the House, Speaker Boehner elaborated, saying, ``I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills serves anyone's best interest. Not the House, not for the Members and not the American people.'' But, if press reports are correct, a 2,000-page bill or more is what we will get. Let's be clear. The prospect of omnibus funding is happening for two simple reasons: First, our colleagues on the other side will not work in a bipartisan manner. There are no Democrat fingerprints on any bills that come to the floor to make the compromise necessary to reach consensus. They continue to pass legislation filled with special interest favors and ideological pursuits that the American people never asked for and don't want. As a result, the legislation is built to fail, and fail it does--over and over again. Secondly, instead of doing the tough, unglamorous, work of the House, we have spent most of the time on ideological quests and political games. Instead of fulfilling the pledge to uphold the Constitution, the majority has worked to fulfill campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and the far right. Instead of creating jobs, our colleagues on the other side have spent months on end pushing a partisan agenda that has covered everything from the trivial to the very real dangers of default. Instead of funding the Department of Energy, the majority has tried to micromanage our lightbulbs. Instead of funding the Nation's schools, they tried to eliminate Big Bird. Instead of funding the EPA, they tried to sell the land surrounding the Grand Canyon to the state-owned mining companies of Russia and South Korea. Instead of funding cancer research conducted by the NIH, they have tried, repeatedly, to repeal health care reform. And instead of setting a responsible budget for the next fiscal year, they brought our economy to the brink of default and led to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit. Even today, our colleagues on the other side are injecting politics into a stopgap CR. Today we are considering legislation that will only provide disaster relief to hurricane victims if billions of dollars are taken from a successful alternative energy program that has created 39,000 jobs to date and is poised to create 60,000 more. We were told in the Rules Committee that this was money simply lying there. In effect, the other side of the aisle is telling the American people that Congress will either help rebuild shattered communities or Congress will create new green jobs, but we refuse to do both. This immoral approach reflects a House of Representatives that is void of responsible leadership from those in charge. Today I'll do the little bit that I can to provide leadership sorely lacking from those in charge. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question at the end of this debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language that says all disaster aid must be offset and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach. Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion on infrastructure in Afghanistan and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of those $3.4 billion was held hostage or offset by any program in our budget. But now, as many Americans are struggling to rebuild and get their lives back to normal, the majority refuses to help unless they are allowed to defund a successful program they happen to dislike. Remember, what this says is that the American public is financing the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq with taxpayer money, but taxpayer money without an offset will not be used to help the American taxpayer. That takes a lot of explaining. Because the majority decided that pursuing a partisan agenda was more important than meeting the basic needs of the country, we face the prospect of a trillion dollar, 1,000-page bill to keep the government running because the other side will not stop playing politics and start governing as we are all expected to do. This failure is a disservice to the American people, an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators, and a shame to the expectations, responsibilities and duties of the House. The majority rode into Washington vowing to change the ways of the past, but over the last 9 months, the American people have witnessed a case study in abandoned responsibilities and misguided priorities. Until the Republican majority begins to govern with responsibility, I fear this Congress will continue to live up to the low regard our Nation has for it, which brings shame on us all. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stop serving their political interests, start doing bipartisan bills, and start serving our country. In closing, 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. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman another 10 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Hinchey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm going to give myself another second here just to say I keep hearing that we're all set for next year in the budget, but who's going to tell Mother Nature just how much we can afford and hope that we don't get more than that? I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). We watched Route 4 in Vermont crumble like a cookie in the rain and wash away.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order a motion to strike the unacceptable House disaster funding language and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach. 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 want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question, and if we are successful in defeating the previous question and offering our amendment, then we will get on with the underlying House amendment. 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, I rise in support of the Pharmaceutical Stewardship Act of 2011. Across the country, unused and expired pharmaceuticals are polluting our water ways, poisoning our children, and putting our public safety at risk. Americans should have a convenient and safe option when they want to rid their cabinets of unused drugs. The pharmaceutical stewardship bill I introduced today would ensure that these drugs are kept out of drinking water and out of the hands of both criminals and unsuspecting children. The need for a safe drug disposal program has never been greater. In a 2008 investigation, pharmaceutical contamination was found in 24 out of 28 metropolitan areas' drinking water. Over 50 pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the Philadelphia source watershed alone. Unlike the citizens of approximately a dozen other countries, Americans do not have a convenient and consistent place to bring their medications. Without a drug take back program, pharmaceuticals are frequently diverted to purposes for which they were not intended. The results can be deadly. Unguarded, unused pharmaceuticals can cause accidental poisonings, be misused, or diverted for criminal purposes. Every fifteen minutes, a child under four will overdose on drugs found at home. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that unintentional prescription opioid overdoses now kill more Americans than cocaine and heroin combined. In Florida, the death rate for prescription drugs increased 84 percent. Without safe disposal options, our most vulnerable and unsuspecting citizens are in the bull's eye of a proliferating pharmaceutical black market. The elderly are at risk of violent home break-ins, scams, and death as prescription drug addicts seek to steal their medications. Drug thieves also target `open house' events and ask to use the bathroom in order to have access to the medicine cabinet. The problem is so rampant that realtors in Ohio are given medication lockboxes to store medications during open houses and the National Association of Realtors recommends hiding all prescription medications during open houses. Americans who want to reduce the threat to their health and safety posed by leftover prescription medications have few options. Federal agencies from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Drug Enforcement Agency are encouraging Americans to use secure medicine take-back programs to return drugs for environmentally sound disposal. But these programs are too few and far between, and communities are struggling to provide them. Because secure take-back programs are not widely available, the FDA currently recommends that the most toxic and addictive substances be flushed down the toilet and into the wastewater system. When take-back programs are not available, federal agencies are forced to advise that all other unwanted pills should be mixed with undesirable substances in an attempt to prevent theft and then thrown in the trash for delivery to the landfill. The current disposal methods are inadequate and even dangerous. A mother with Crohn's disease was prescribed an opioid patch 100 times stronger than morphine but she was afraid her plumbing could not handle the used patch so she threw it away. Her 4-year old died after finding and applying the patch from the trash. Furthermore, pharmaceuticals disposed in the trash or down the drain reach our nation's waterways and our drinking water. In 2002, the United States Geological Survey found that 80 percent of streams and 93 percent of groundwater was contaminated with at least one pharmaceutical. In 2008, an investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are exposed to prescription drugs through their drinking water. Others are exposed when food crops are fertilized with polluted biosolids and absorb pharmaceuticals through the roots to the plant itself. Perhaps even more frightening is that the current extent of pharmaceutical pollution is unknown and understudied. Aquatic organisms and indeed whole ecosystems can never escape this witches brew of pharmaceuticals. The USGS recently reported the widespread sexual disruption in fish across the United States. Of the many compounds in the pharmaceutical slurry that aquatic organisms swim in, estrogens are particularly concerning. In a review of the literature, fish were found to be particularly susceptible to these endocrine disrupting chemicals. Intersexed fish are found around the nation and even at a wastewater treatment plant in the Nation's Capital. In this District of Columbia study, female eggs were found in over 80 percent of the small mouth bass male reproductive organs. Unused and expired pharmaceuticals are a threat to our homes, families, communities, and the environment. Sporadic take back events are not sufficient. DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart recently stated that the 309 tons of pills collected at two recent community- funded take-back events ``represents a clear need for a convenient way to rid homes of unwanted or expired prescription drugs.'' Public safety organizations and medical organizations have called for expanded drug takeback programs. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) senior vice president and chief medical officer, Allan Korn, M.D., stated that ``Unused prescription medicines that remain in homes can be misused or abused if they get in the wrong hands of children, family or friends,'' and commended, ``providing a safe and easy way for Americans to drop off their unnecessary prescription drugs.'' The bill I introduce today would help solve these serious environmental, public health, and public safety concerns by providing Americans with a convenient way to safely dispose of their pharmaceuticals. Producer responsibility and stewardship is the backbone of this legislation. Simply put, producers must take responsibility for their product beyond the initial manufacture and sale. By establishing a national drug take back program financed by producers, this legislation will help reduce the supply of unused medications across the country and prevent the entry of pharmaceuticals into the water supply. In addition, this legislation establishes a commission of stakeholders to investigate risks, causes, and potential solutions of pharmaceutical contaminants in the environment and waterways. Using this information, the Commission will develop a strategy that will prevent pharmaceutical contaminants from polluting our waterways and environments from cradle-to-grave. Without a safe means of disposing our pharmaceuticals, we risk our public health, our public safety, and our environment. We cannot wait any longer for action.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a month-long standoff over raising the debt ceiling, Congress is now forced to take action on a bill that by all accounts is deeply flawed. I think everybody today has agreed with that. Why are we doing a flawed bill? Because we waited until the last minute. Instead of reducing the Nation's debt by closing tax loopholes for oil companies and private jet owners, today's bill instead creates a supercommittee that will decide how to take over a trillion dollars in cuts. And this supercommittee will serve as a mock Congress, leaving 523 Members of Congress sitting on the sidelines while a group of 12 decides the shape of the country for a decade to come. Paying our debt should be a no brainer. Indeed the debt ceiling itself is an antiquated solution to a problem we no longer face and should be eliminated. It was originally created to pay for World War I, to provide our country with economic stability while at war. Today we are again in the midst of war, but instead of protecting the stability of our economy, some in Congress have decided to question the necessity of paying our bills. As we all know by now, they have taken our economy hostage and demanded draconian cuts in exchange for not leading our Nation into default. The actions have caused real and significant damage. Roll Call reports that because of the prolonged debt ceiling crisis, the interest rate the United States Government must pay has already increased, which means the interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are also increasing. The stock market has responded as expected. According to DealBook, as of July 29, big banks and companies withdrew $37.5 billion from money market funds that are described as a key artery for our economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 5 percent of its value last week, which meant 401(k)s, pension plans, retirement plans of all Americans were put at risk and much of it lost. Baby boomers across the United States watched nervously as all those things were happening. As I mentioned earlier, this type of crisis has become the new normal in this Congress. Under the Republican rule, the House of Representatives has repeatedly led our country to the brink of unthinkable situations. First, the majority led the country to the brink of a government shutdown, threatening the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers and endangering vital government services relied on by Americans every day. As we speak, the Federal Aviation Administration is shuttered, costing the United States Government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue because the majority refuses to pass a clean legislation that does not include measures that threaten rural communities and the future of airline unions. Now the majority has brought us to the edge of a cliff in order to see how much they can get for not throwing the country into default. In January, Speaker Boehner promised the American people the debt ceiling debate would be an example of an ``adult moment'' in Washington. Is this what he had in mind? Just this morning, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, went on National Public Radio saying his party has ``not threatened to torpedo the economy by defaulting.'' This statement defies reality. We've been brought to this point precisely because the leadership in his party has walked out of negotiations and demanded that they get ideologically driven cuts before they will vote to protect the stability of our economy. Last, but certainly not least, the crisis of the last few months has come at the expense of addressing the true crisis in our country--the jobs crisis that is facing millions of our fellow citizens. Last month, over 25 million Americans failed to find full-time work. Many have been out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have expired as their skills erode and they are living on savings or charity from loved ones and friends. In response, we have not introduced a single bill in this House designed to invest significant government resources into creating jobs. Instead, we have repeatedly proposed cutting funding to investments in green technology and transportation infrastructure, destroying the promise of putting thousands of Americans back to work in the jobs that can't be outsourced overseas. They have refused to extend unemployment benefits for those who can't find jobs and are moving nowhere fast to extend a payroll tax break that has helped create the small number of jobs that we added in recent months. Mr. Speaker, it is time that serious responsibilities are taken here, the responsibilities of leadership, and in doing so, put an end to this self-inflicted crisis and focus on getting Americans back to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a tense standoff over a self- inflicted crisis, I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is being proposed today. It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the duty of every Member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills. Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on. Recently, IMF Chief Christine Lagarde told CNN in not so many words that we are destroying the world's faith in our ability to be the most powerful economy on Earth and our ability to pay our bills. This dysfunction is only highlighted further by the proposed creation of a so-called ``Super Committee,'' a closed-door committee that will determine how to cut another $1 trillion in government spending while 523 elected Representatives are told to sit on the sidelines and vote up and down when all is said and done. I repeat what I said last week, my constituents did not send me to Congress to sit on sidelines while the most important issues of our time are being decided. The crumbling faith in our democracy is already having an effect on our economy. Just last week, Roll Call reported that the prolonged debate over raising the debt ceiling resulted in an increase in Federal borrowing costs--a fancy way to say that interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are higher now than they should have or would have been. Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does nothing to serve them. The majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is underway. On Sunday, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of a major financial firm, spoke of the damage that proposed cuts will inflict on our economy. While speaking on ABC, he said, ``Unemployment will be higher than it would have been otherwise, growth will be lower than it would have been otherwise, and inequality will be worse than it would have been otherwise.'' He added, ``We have a very weak economy. Withdrawing more spending at this stage is going to make it even weaker.'' Today's agreement will endanger the potential for new jobs while asking absolutely nothing of those in our country who are the most well off. Democrats will continue to vigorously fight for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to ensure that not a penny is cut from the checks of seniors and working people who rely on these programs every day. It is a contract. We believe that ultimately we must take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. Tax loopholes must be closed, and those who have benefited the most in this country must be asked to pay their fair share. And regardless of the outcome of today's bill, these are the priorities for which I will continue to fight. Especially as the debt debate continues, I urge my colleagues to look towards a balanced approach and return this country to its rightful place as a shining example of democracy and equality for which we should once again aspire. I reserve the balance of my time.