Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask a question: If everybody is doing things so well in the United States, why do 76 million Americans get sick every single year from contaminated food and 5,000 of them die? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, legislation that will help make our food supply safer and cleaner and provide much-needed peace of mind to American families. Too often recently, we have watched horrible news reports showing stories of Americans who have become terribly sick or have died from eating the same simple foods that we take for granted and consume every day. Think about that for a minute. Our country, one of the wealthiest in the world with the most bountiful food supply and endless choices for consumers, has been in the grip of a food panic that shows no signs of easing up. Peanut butter, spinach, cookie dough, beef, tomatoes, sprouts, pistachios--every day it seems like it's something new. We know that every year 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, and 5,000 of those persons die. This issue has probably touched every one of us in some way. In too many cases, they're not random, unpredictable events but widespread and systematic. And sadly, they are also preventable. They come about because of flaws in our food safety system. I am happy to say that these gaps in protection are closed by this legislation. Under this bill, we give the FDA new authority, new tools, and a new source of funding to carry out its vital mission. Thanks to this bill, the FDA will make more frequent inspections of food processing facilities, develop a food trace-back system to pinpoint the source of food-borne illnesses, and have enhanced powers to ensure that imported foods are safe. The bill provides the FDA better access to the records of food producers and manufacturers without having to wait for an outbreak of food-borne illness. The bill provides strong, flexible enforcement tools and, importantly, it strengthens penalties imposed on food facilities that fail to comply with safety requirements. We require food facilities to have safety plans in place to identify and mitigate hazards, one of the best ways to make an immediate improvement to food safety. The legislation before us is bipartisan, and I think it is safe to say it will fundamentally change the way we protect the safety of our food supply. It is worth noting the bill was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee back on June 17 by voice vote. That is how broad the support was. We know this bill enjoys a lot of support from all Members. It received 280 votes yesterday, including 50 Republican votes that I'm happy to have and very confident that the bill will enjoy the same level of support today. I will enter a copy of an editorial from today's New York Times into the Record. The page made the following points: ``Under the current system, the FDA can only try to coax a food production facility to voluntarily recall its product after people have grown sick or even died. The legislation, the best in years, would give the agency a great deal more power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks. The FDA would finally have the authority to set strong science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting, and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The agency would then require each food production facility to come up with the best safety plan showing how it would meet those standards. ``Right now several years or more can elapse before the FDA does a full onsite inspection of a food facility. Most inspections are done by States and not all plants are visited. Under this bill so-called high- risk facilities, ones where there have been problems in the past or ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood, would have to be inspected by the FDA every 6 to 12 months. Lower-risk facilities, which deal with items like dry packaged products with no history of causing problems, would be inspected every 18 months to 3 years.'' As others have noted, the legislation is supported by a range of organizations including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, American Public Health Association, Association of Schools of Public Health, Center for Science and the Public Interest, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Trust for America's Health, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. I was disappointed yesterday that some farm organizations seem unwilling to support the legislation even after the committee negotiated in good faith to address their concerns. That lack of support cost us the two-thirds support needed for passage. I want to address a few other concerns, including one complaint that every farm has to pay an annual $500 fee. I would like to point out that that requirement does not apply to farms that sell directly to consumers, meaning most if not all small family organic farms would not be covered. Another concern centered on what this bill would mean to small organic farmers and whether the larger FDA power would interfere with their operations. The bill specifically says the FDA can only issue standards for the riskiest products, and the FDA is also directed to take into consideration the impact on small-scale and diversified farms and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed protection efforts, and organic production methods. Yet another issue centered on whether confidential farm records might be disclosed by the FDA to others. In fact, the only new records that the FDA can have access to relate only to fresh produce for which the FDA has issued a safety standard or that is the subject of an active investigation of a food-borne illness outbreak. It is my hope that the small farmers in my district in upstate New York and elsewhere see this bill as a positive step forward in improving safety. Ultimately, we should feel confident about the quality of our food regardless of whether it comes from a big farm or a small family-run organic farm. Let me touch on one other issue as well. The legislation does not include strong new language to restrict the current overuse, I would say abuse, of antibiotics by farmers who raise livestock for human consumption. We have legislation that has a strong and growing number of supporters who, like me, worry that the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in our food supply poses an enormous and growing health risk for all Americans. It is my plan to make a strong push on this legislation later in the year, and I hope all my colleagues who are ready to vote for this food safety bill will be with us when we take up the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Let's approve this food safety bill right now and start taking steps to make sure that our food supply is as safe as it can be. [From The New York Times, July 30, 2009] Vote for Safer Food Far too many Americans are falling ill after eating foods tainted with salmonella, E. coli and other pathogens. The Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with protecting much of the nation's food supply, doesn't have the authority or the tools to do its job. The House of Representatives can start to fix that problem if it votes this week to approve the Food Safety Enhancement Act. Under the current system, the F.D.A. can only try to coax a food production facility to voluntarily recall its product after people have grown sick or even died. The legislation, the best in years, would give the agency a great deal more power and responsibility to prevent such outbreaks. The F.D.A. would finally have the authority to set strong science-based safety standards for the growing, harvesting and transporting of both domestic and imported food. The agency would then require each food production facility to come up with the best safety plan showing how it would meet those standards. To investigate possible food problems, the F.D.A. would be able to demand far more information during inspections, and it would be required to set up a process for tagging food to make it easier to trace the source of a food-borne illness. The tomato business was devastated last year when tomatoes were blamed for an outbreak of salmonella that was really caused by tainted jalapeno and other peppers. Right now, several years or more can elapse before the F.D.A. does a full on-site inspection of a food facility. Most inspections are done by states, and many plants are not visited at all. Under this bill, so-called high-risk facilities--ones where there have been problems in the past or ones that handle easily spoiled items like raw seafood-- would have to be inspected by the F.D.A. every 6 to 12 months. Lower-risk facilities, which deal with items like dry packaged products with no history of causing problems, would be inspected every 18 months to three years. For that reason, the F.D.A. will need more inspectors, but it is unclear whether new license fees of $500 a year per food facility will be enough to pay for them. The bill does not solve all of the problems of food safety, of course. There will still be a patchwork of federal inspection programs done by a variety of different agencies. In the future, one food agency that works for consumers and food producers makes more sense. Right now, the F.D.A. has the responsibility for 80 percent of the nation's food supply, and this bill would give it a lot more of the muscle it needs to do that job. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 650, 651, 652, and 653. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 650, 651, 652, and 653.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to Mr. Pence's amendment. Pursuant to Federal Statute, no Title X funds can be spent on abortions. So the only conclusion to be drawn from the offering of this amendment is that Mr. Pence is attempting to use propaganda based on hypocrisy to wage war on family planning services. Mr. Pence's amendment would cut off 1.7 million women--more than one in three women who receive Title X services--from their trusted, family planning provider. Multitudes of poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X. Low-income women are currently four times more likely to face an unintended pregnancy. 84 percent of Title X clients have incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, and 61 percent are uninsured. That is why for most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity. Each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated one million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. From a public health standpoint, Title X family planning clinics are often the primary health care provider for low income women. The Title X program provides comprehensive family planning services as well as a wide range of other preventive health care services, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, Pap tests for early detection of cervical cancer or precancerous conditions, testing for high blood pressure, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, counseling on adoption, foster care, and pregnancy termination and referrals to specialized health care. In these tough economic times it is hard to understand why Mr. Pence would want to yet again launch an assault on public health care for low income women and families. I strongly urge my colleagues to put public health ahead of politics and vote ``no'' on Mr. Pence's harmful amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 646, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 620, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Part A Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Latham

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to pay tribute to Pope Barrow. Mr. Barrow heads the Office of the Legislative Counsel, an office that advises and assists Members to effect a ``clear, faithful, and coherent expression of legislative policies.'' While it's optional to use the services provided by Legislative Counsel, most members have learned over the years that it's worth the time to cooperate with the experts. The office provides legal assistance in connection with virtually every bill, resolution, amendment, and conference report introduced or offered in the House or one of its committees. Pope has led the operation since 1999 after joining the office back in 1968. He has worked on legislation in a variety of different fields including: taxation; foreign affairs; war powers; pensions; environmental law; public land law; and energy law. Even after being appointed to the top job he continued to work on energy law in addition to his management responsibilities. The son of a United States Marine, Pope was born in Savannah, Georgia in 1942 near Parris Island, South Carolina. He grew up on a farm near here, in Maryland. He attended Yale College and then Harvard Law School before beginning his distinguished career in the House of Representatives. In recent years, Pope has worked very closely with the Rules Committee, the committee that I have the privilege to chair. Pope is a true professional, nonpartisan, neutral, and serving both parties equally. Over the years, he has provided drafting assistance to Members representing all political viewpoints and it is a credit to his reputation that he and his staff always managed to maintain confidentiality with each client. The pressures of the legislative agenda have only grown over the years since Pope was appointed Legislative Counsel. But in that time he has guided his staff of 45 attorneys and 16 support staff through some of the most taxing legislative sessions, producing literally tens of thousands of professionally drafted documents each year. His expertise, willingness to be part of the solution, and lively spirit will be sorely missed in this House. Today, the Rules Committee and the Congress is losing one of its greatest resources. We wish Mr. Barrow all the best in his life after he leaves behind the hectic amendment deadlines and late night drafting and moves on to new challenges. In fact, Pope recently sailed across the Atlantic in 21 days--not bad for an attorney--and we hope he now finds time to sail across the Pacific.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained because I was meeting with the South Korean Ambassador and missed rollcall votes 357 and 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 357 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 358. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have anymore speakers present on the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 552.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Athletics Accountability Act. As opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and athletics have been made increasingly available, women's participation has grown exponentially. Over three million high school girls now participate in organized sports, as opposed to 294,015 in 1971 before Title IX was enacted. Athletic participation has brought with it confidence and camaraderie among young women, giving them memories and friends that will last a lifetime. Despite our progress, persistent attacks against equality for women's sports require that we continue to protect the rights our nation's young women deserve. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for high schools and parents to ensure fairness in their athletics programs. The High School Athletics Accountability Act requires that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. The data will help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Ultimately better information will encourage greater participation of all students in athletics. Without information about how athletic opportunities and benefits are being allocated at the high school level, female students may be deprived of their chance to play sports. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education. A survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Associations indicates that female students receive 1.3 million fewer opportunities to play high school sports than do male students, which translate into many lost opportunities for athletic scholarships. Other studies show that student athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. Women athletes also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self- esteem than female non-athletes--critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives. We must give our schools the tools they need to identify inequities in their programs so that current and future generations of women can enjoy the benefits of sports. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help girls move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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