Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill yesterday was brought to the Rules Committee as an emergency meeting. Now, what would be an emergency in the United States? The cost of the war? The damage of the war? Unemployment figures? The deficit? Home foreclosure? The tragedy in Japan? A no-fly zone over Libya? No. The emergency is that they want to destroy National Public Radio. This is the latest in a long string of misplaced priorities by the Republican Party. It does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal condition. It doesn't create a single job. In fact, it will lose some. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the legislation does absolutely zero to reduce the deficit. When so many Americans want our representatives to create jobs to responsibly reduce the deficit and to bring our sons and daughters home from the battlefields overseas, why are we wasting valuable floor time on an ideological battle that does nothing to achieve any of those goals? Because the bill is a political stunt, it is being rushed through Congress under draconian rules. Violating their own promises of transparency, the Republican majority held no hearings, no committee action of any kind, listened to no expert testimony, and provided no chance for the American people to weigh in. Just by saying it is an emergency, apparently, in many minds, it does become one. By not providing a true 72 hours and because the bill, itself, omitted the fact that the bill would lay over to allow all Members to review the legislation, they violated the spirit of the transparency they promised the American people just 5 months ago. My colleagues on the other side know that they must pass this legislation quickly before the American people, at the rate of 69 percent, are allowed to speak and tell their representatives something they don't want to hear, for the American people, unlike the far right- wing, know that NPR is not an ideological news outlet and that NPR radio bases its reporting on fact, which is really an anomaly today in the United States. NPR doesn't try to blur the line between opinion, fact, and political agenda. Instead, it takes the time and spends the money to do in-depth reporting across the country and around the globe and to go where no other news organization will go. Unlike commercial news outlets that are driven by the need to garner ratings and sell commercial advertising, National Public Radio concerns itself, first and foremost, with informing the Nation on the complex issues that face our country. In stark contrast to the bare bones and often sensationalist reporting found elsewhere, National Public Radio operates 17 foreign bureaus. In fact, it is one of the few news outlets to maintain a full- time bureau in Afghanistan, reporting from the front lines of a largely forgotten war. It is also in the process of opening a bureau in Turkey in order to report firsthand on the democratic uprisings throughout the Middle East. In the United States, it has correspondents spread out from Texas to Oregon, telling the stories not covered by the cable news pundits that we see on TV every day. In rural America in particular, NPR can often be the only, best source of news. Defunding NPR will cut off this valuable source of news from the southern tier of western New York to the plains of the upper Midwest, and will put rural communities at a major disadvantage in the information age. It is because of their valuable and unique reporting that Americans are increasingly turning to NPR in order to learn about our ever- changing world. In fact, despite the challenges facing the news media, a new report by the Pew Foundation has shown that NPR is strong and is growing more popular every day. According to the report, NPR's audience has grown to 27.2 million weekly listeners. This is a 58 percent increase since the year 2000. In addition, the Web site is a premier online news destination, garnering 15.7 million visitors a month, which is an increase of more than 5 million people over the course of a single year--and are those people really going to be angry. I've been a proud supporter of NPR my whole life in public service. While serving in the New York State Legislature, I fought for the launch of news programming on my local public radio station, WXXI. From that humble beginning over 30 years ago, I find myself standing on the floor of the House of Representatives, fighting for NPR again today. I stand here because, quite simply, facts matter. This Nation wasn't built because we huffed and puffed and wished it were so. We didn't become a global leader by bloviating on 24-hour cable news, and we aren't solving the fundamental issues that face our Nation by passing this politically driven legislation to appease the far right. Our Nation was built and will be rebuilt by the quiet efforts of millions of Americans across the country who will never make it on cable news and who will never appear on national television. It is these very Americans whom NPR dedicates its resources to finding, to covering, and to sharing the world with. Their stories aren't simple, and their efforts don't sell advertising space, but their stories matter. NPR's work to find the stories that matter is the in-depth intelligent reporting that I fight for today. No matter what I say, some will still believe that NPR isn't worth funding because they want it to be true. Some will find it in their interests to scare Americans into believing in an NPR straw man, while others will take comfort in watching the straw man fall. Yet, deep in our hearts, all of us know that governing through fear and divisive legislation is not a responsible way to move this country forward. It is certainly no replacement for creating jobs. With millions of Americans who are unemployed and struggling to live, we can't waste another minute on the House floor without debating a bill that will put some Americans back to work. We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans while playing cheap political games. Yesterday, I asked, Why only National Public Radio? Why not television? I think I know the answer to that. A few years ago, that was tried. The House of Representatives actually tried to kill Big Bird, to destroy Elmo, and to get rid of Bert and Ernie, but it didn't work. I think they didn't want to try that one yet again. The backers of this bill said to me yesterday that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund with their hard-earned money what they don't believe in. Well, that's an interesting theory, but democracies don't operate that way. If they could, my husband and I and two-thirds of the people in America would gladly be excused from paying the $8 billion a month that we pay for a war which we profoundly do not believe in. We simply must stop this nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world. National Public Radio is something that you could turn off if you don't want to hear it, but for the millions of Americans who depend on it, this just cannot be done. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am going to yield myself 30 seconds to tell my colleague from California to calm himself. He doesn't have to worry. We are not equating war and NPR. What I had said was that the basis of this bill today was that people should not have to pay for what they don't believe in. If that's going to be the way the majority is going to run this House, then 66 percent of Americans would like to not pay for the war. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding this time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, that what the world is waiting for this Congress to do is to create jobs. We are approaching 100 days here without a single bill to do that, and we certainly look forward to that great day. Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that this country was facing the real possibility of another Great Depression. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by reckless decisionmaking on Wall Street that had deep and painful impacts on hardworking Americans everywhere. As a result, millions of people lost everything. They lost jobs, retirement savings, and homes. All across America, families anguished over how to avoid homelessness, how to feed their families, how to keep them intact, how to keep their lives together for just one more day. Three years later, we are starting to see the signs of a fragile recovery. However slowly, we have started to see modest private sector job growth over the past few months. However, we are far from where we need to be, and the troubled housing market remains in complete disarray. Millions of Americans are unemployed and still struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. Millions more are saddled with mortgages worth more than their homes. Foreclosures swallowed up a whopping 1.2 million homes across the country in 2010, up from 900,000 in 2009. Despite the Republicans' apparent lack of concern for the ongoing foreclosure mess, many estimate that the United States will eclipse previous yearly totals and foreclose on even more Americans in 2011. There is overwhelming evidence that everybody knows about that many of these foreclosures were faulty or downright illegal, and yet no accounting of this failure is demanded. But the people who lost their homes have lost it in major ways and have no recourse except some of these bills. These bills obviously need a lot of help. I couldn't agree more. They are not the best we could do. And yet the sad thing to me is that once these four bills are done away with, there is no replacement, and we simply leave Americans to function as best they can. If we are a Nation that cares whether or not our neighbors are kicked out onto the street, it's clear that we can't end these programs designed to lend a helping hand without something to replace them. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program was created to help prevent foreclosures that are the result of massive financial hardships caused by unemployment and underemployment across the Nation. Admittedly, some foreclosure prevention efforts of the past few years have not had as much success as we hoped. And we certainly have had very little cooperation from banks. They were simply asked to help, not required to. Democrats agree that the programs need improvement and would support a process to allow for bipartisan collaboration. So it's a shame that we stand here today ready to kill this program before it even gets off the ground or has a chance to help stem the tide of foreclosure. My colleagues on the other side are ready to end the program without offering any solution to what is clearly a continuing problem. But if we don't provide help to our constituents in need, then who? It surely won't be the big banks foreclosing on our neighbors at record numbers. Just today, the New York Times reports that the CEO of Bank of America rejected the idea of reducing home loans for Americans in need. He thinks if he has to do it for one, he'll have to do it for all. What's fair about big banks reporting record profits by kicking homeowners out on the street? What's fair about banking executives walking away from their failed mortgage schemes without punishment while thousands live in their cars or subsist in squalor not fit for a global superpower? The audacity to call for a fair modification process after swindling millions of Americans with predatory mortgages and walking away with record profits as the house of cards collapsed is simply maddening. Yet we stand here today preparing to debate a bill that will tell the American people that we just don't care. With so many homeowners still facing foreclosure, we should be focused on ways to improve programs designed to keep people in their homes. Many of these families are facing insurmountable odds on their own, but with just a little help they may be able to make it through this tough time. But instead of reforming the program, today we are eliminating it. I would like to talk a little about the process. Today's rule is called a modified open rule, but this is not an open process. For starters, if the debate on the bill inspires an amendment, a Member cannot offer it because it would not have been printed in time. Secondly, if the bill is changed by an amendment, Members will not have the ability to respond to the changes. This limits the give-and-take of ideas that is the hallmark of dynamic and rigorous debate. But the biggest problem with this process is that Members who want to reform the program rather than completely get rid of it must find a germane offset, which is nearly impossible because the bill completely eliminates the program. In other words, any amendment to save any part of it would have to be offset by new money. We agree that reform is needed. Members have ideas for reform, alternatives to simply eliminating the existing program. Unfortunately, under this process, these alternatives cannot be offered. I urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us to improve these foreclosure programs, stem the foreclosure tide, and strengthen our middle class. This bill does not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to respond. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to yield myself 1 minute, if I may, simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that these bills are unneeded. Let me just quote a little bit from the Dallas Morning News: home prices down 3.6 percent in December, 40 percent of home sales in north Texas are foreclosed and short-sale homes. A Dallas housing analyst said, ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market,'' and they're going to receive 135 million assistance unless all these bills die. I will insert the full text of the Dallas Morning News into the Record. I obviously mention Dallas because that is the district of my colleague, and I wanted to point out that there's pain at home. [From the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 22, 2011] Dallas-Area Home Prices Sag Again (By Steve Brown) Dallas-area home prices show no sign of a rebound in the latest measure. And economists worry that further declines are ahead. Prices in the area were down 3.6 percent in Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released Tuesday. The December report was the sixth consecutive year-over- year Dallas decline in the closely watched monthly survey. Nationwide home prices were 2.4 percent lower than a year earlier, according to Case-Shiller. Only two of the 20 cities that Case-Shiller tracks had increases from previous-year levels. ``Despite improvements in the overall economy, housing continues to drift lower and weaker,'' Standard & Poor's David Blitzer said in the report. Dallas' decline in December was a bit improved from the 4.2 percent annual price drop that the area saw in November. Home prices in the area remain about 9 percent below where they were at the peak of the market in 2007. So far, that's the smallest such drop among all the U.S. markets that the Case-Shiller index tracks. Nationwide prices have slid about 30 percent since residential values began falling in summer 2006. Dallas prices at the end of 2010 were about 5 percent lower than they were in June, when the local housing market appeared to have turned the corner. Since then, sales have plunged and the number of foreclosures coming onto the market has grown--both creating downward pressure on prices. ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market,'' said David Brown, who heads the Dallas office of housing analyst Metrostudy Inc. ``We are [also] continuing to see the effect of the slowdown in sales after the tax credit expired. Positive, but . . . ``I think the reports will start to turn more positive in the second half of the year,'' Brown said. In the meantime, economic growth in the area and expected gains in home sales later in 2011 will reduce the unsold inventory, he said. But there are also worries that thousands of public-sector layoffs will add to the housing sector's woes. ``Most of the people who work in the public sector are homeowners,'' said Dr. James Gaines, an economist with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. ``It will be like another wave of private-sector layoffs.'' Gaines said it's too early to tell how many teachers and other state and local government workers will lose their income because of Texas' huge budget shortfall. But he knows the impact of these layoffs could cause further home foreclosures and certainly reduce potential housing purchases. ``Hopefully, the private sector will absorb some of these folks losing their jobs,'' Gaines said. ``It depends on how severe it is.'' Case-Shiller said that at the end of 2010, the biggest home price declines were in Detroit, down 9.1 percent from a year earlier, and Phoenix, down 8.3 percent. Washington, D.C., (up 4.1 percent) and San Diego (up 1.7 percent) were the only markets that Case-Shiller studied where December prices were higher. Dallas-area home prices began falling in July after eight months of year-over-year gains. Troubled properties By recent estimates, almost 40 percent of monthly home sales in North Texas are distressed properties--previously foreclosed and short-sale homes. On average, these homes sell for about 30 percent below nondistressed prices. Case-Shiller looks at the actual value of specific single- family homes over time. The index does not include condominiums and townhouses. It only covers pre-owned properties--no new construction. Declining home prices. Percentage change in home prices in December 2010 compared to year earlier in each market. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlanta.................................................... -8.0% Boston..................................................... -0.8% Charlotte.................................................. -4.4% Chicago.................................................... -7.4% Cleveland.................................................. -4.0% Dallas..................................................... -3.6% Denver..................................................... -2.4% Detroit.................................................... -9.1% Las Vegas.................................................. -4.7% Los Angeles................................................ -0.2% Miami...................................................... -3.7% Minneapolis................................................ -5.3% New York................................................... -2.3% Phoenix.................................................... -8.3% Portland................................................... -7.8% San Diego.................................................. 1.7% San Francisco.............................................. -0.4% Seattle.................................................... -6.0% Tampa...................................................... -6.2% Washington................................................. 4.1% Composite-20 city.......................................... -2.4% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Standard & Poor's and Fiserv Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Every year, two million Americans acquire bacterial infections during their hospital stay, and 90,000 will die from them. 70 percent of these infections will be resistant to the drugs commonly used to treat them. Drug resistance prolongs the length, cost, and severity of the illness, raising health care costs and reducing health outcomes. In the 1990s, the Institute of Medicine estimated that health care costs were upwards of $5 billion; more recent cost estimates have climbed even higher. According to a recent peer-reviewed article published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal, antibiotic resistant infections extended hospital stays between six and 13 days as well as increasing mortality. The researchers concluded that antibiotic resistance costs society over $35 billion nationally. Antibiotic resistance is a major public health crisis, and yet antibiotics are used regularly and with little oversight in agriculture. Many of the antibiotics used in agriculture as animal feed additives are also used to treat humans, including tetracyclines, sulfonamides, penicillins, macrolides, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols, and streptogramins. These classes of antibiotics are critical to our treatment of potentially fatal human diseases. Tetracyclines, for example, are used to treat people potentially exposed to anthrax. Macrolides and sulfonamides are used to prevent secondary infections in patients with AIDS and to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. Penicillins are used to treat infections ranging from strep throat to meningitis. Despite their importance to human medicine, antibiotics are used routinely to promote growth in livestock agriculture. According to analyses by the Food and Drug Administration, 13.1 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold for use in livestock and poultry, and 3.3 million kilograms were sold for use in humans in 2009. It is unacceptable that 80 percent of antibacterial drugs were sold for use in agriculture in the United States in 2009--rather than for human health purposes. The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been conclusively shown to harm human health. A 2002 publication in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal analyzing more than 500 scientific articles concluded that ``many lines of evidence link antimicrobial resistant human infections to food-borne pathogens of animal origin.'' The Institute of Medicine, likewise, concluded that reducing the agricultural usage of antibiotics was necessary. Their 2003 report on Microbial Threats to Health concluded, ``Clearly, a decrease in the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in human medicine alone is not enough. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse in animals and agriculture as well.'' Federal agencies, public health organizations, and scientists are united by their concern with the overuse of antibiotics, and its implications for human health. Despite increased attention to the issue, the response has been inadequate. Part of the problem has been the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA's, failure to properly address the effect of the misuse of animal antibiotics on the efficacy of human drugs. Although the FDA could withdraw its approval for these antibiotics, its record of reviewing currently approved drugs under existing procedures indicate that it would take nearly a century to remove these medically important antibiotics from the feed given to food producing animals. In October 2000, for example, the FDA began consideration of a proposal to withdraw its approval for the therapeutic use of fluoroquinolones in poultry. The review, and eventual withdraw of approval, took five years to complete. Under its current regulations, the FDA must review each class of antibiotics separately. For this reason, I introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for the Medical Treatment Act, PAMTA. This legislation would phase out the use of the seven classes of medically significant antibiotics that are currently approved for non- therapeutic use in animal agriculture. This bill only restricts the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals; it does not infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal. Addressing this critical issue is not only important for protecting the public's health, but also to ensure that American livestock production remain competitive in international markets. Nations around the world including those of the European Union, New Zealand, Thailand, and Korea all have either banned or will begin banning the use of antibiotics for the purpose of growth promotion in animal feed. Under World Trade Organization rules, trading partners who implement this ban will have the right to refuse imports that do not meet this standard. Accordingly, if the United States does not conduct similar restrictions, but continues to allow for the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, there may be major trade and economic implications. Limiting antibiotic usage in agriculture is eminently practical, as Denmark's example shows. After banning the non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics, Denmark increased productivity while lowering antibiotic usage. A recently published article in the American Journal of Veterinary Research evaluated the effectiveness of Denmark's ban on non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics, and determined that the ban did not harm agricultural productivity. From 1992 to 2008, antimicrobial usage per kilogram of pig produced decreased from 100 to 49--a decrease of more than 50 percent. At the same time, pig production increased from 18.4 to 27.1 million pigs--an increase of 47 percent. This peer- reviewed evaluation reveals that eliminating non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics helped position Denmark's agricultural industrially globally. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, therefore, is an urgent trade matter as well as an urgent public health matter. When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medical treatments. Unless we act now, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria. It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and do something to address the spread of resistant bacteria. We cannot afford for our medicines to become obsolete.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. NEA funding is an investment in the arts, but it's also an investment in communities and jobs. The arts have an incredible ability to enrich our communities and strengthen our cultural diversity, while positively impacting local economies and spurring billions in economic activity. A strong arts sector is an economic engine that stimulates businesses, generating $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time jobs, and returns $12.6 billion in Federal income taxes. The NEA provides grants to communities across the country, supporting our national progress and scholarship in the arts. For each Federal dollar spent on the arts, it creates 9 dollars in economic activity for local communities. The arts creates jobs in every Congressional District across the country. In Representative Garrett's district alone, there are 2,042 arts-related businesses that employ 8,473 people, according to Americans for the Arts. And yet, Representative Garrett is proposing to completely eliminate funding for the NEA, which will threaten jobs and businesses in his district. The arts also generates tourism revenue. Arts audiences spend more than $100 billion annually boosting local economies. Every year, 78- percent of U.S. travelers take arts and heritage trips with their families, contributing more than $192 billion annually to the U.S. economy. In my district, the 28th District of New York, we have impressive institutions that attract tourists from far and wide, like the Shea's Performing Arts Center in Buffalo and the Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester. Americans embrace the arts on a personal level. Both military and civilian populations have long relied on the arts for inspiration, to raise morale, to fight anxiety, and to express our democratic values. This amendment represents the Republicans' commitment to killing jobs and stifling economic activity. It's flawed ideas like this one that have created zero jobs with a Republican Majority. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this job killing, economy stifling amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.