Elissa Slotkin

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the PFAS Action Act, which would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with other relevant government agencies, to report to Congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to PFAS firefighting foam and other related equipment containing PFAS. PFAS contamination hits particularly close to home for me and my constituents. We in Michigan are confronting widespread PFAS contamination in our water, chemicals that we know are linked to cancer and other diseases. This past summer, I toured Strawberry Lake, part of Livingston County's beautiful chain of lakes in my district, where foam resulting from PFAS buildup is visible in plain sight. I held a forum focused on PFAS contamination in Pinckney, Michigan, a community that has been under a ``do not eat fish'' advisory for over a year and a ``do not touch foam'' advisory for many months. The more than 200 attendees expressed deep concern about the impact of PFAS contamination on their health, safety, and livelihoods, and had simple questions about how to know whether their water is safe to drink, eat fish from, or even touch. In September, I met with Brighton Fire Chief Michael O'Brien and fire chiefs from across Livingston County and discussed their concerns about exposure to firefighting foam that contains high concentrations of PFAS. PFAS presents alarming health risks. According to the CDC, exposure to PFAS can affect growth, learning, and behavior in infants and older children; lower a woman's chance of getting pregnant; increase the risk of cancer; and impact the immune system. In fact, one of my constituents, who spent his career as an auto mechanic and was exposed to PFAS-contaminated materials on a daily basis, is now connecting his diagnosis of MS, or an autoimmune disease, to his exposure to PFAS at work. In Michigan, the high levels of PFAS have been detected in 34 sites, including at Diamond Chrome Plating in my district. In addition, these chemicals have been found at some level in municipal drinking water serving more than 2 million people across the State. PFAS has been detected in 54 Michigan schools, including 5 schools in my district. Last summer, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services issued an emergency ``do not eat'' advisory regarding all fish from sections of the Huron River in my district after fish from Kent Lake were discovered to contain very high levels of PFAS. Let me be clear: I believe that access to clean water out of your tap is a right and not a privilege. I believe that environmental security is homeland security. If it is threatening the safety and security of your family and preservation of your way of life, that is homeland security. When Michigan families can't be confident that the water they are giving their children to drink won't make them sick or give them a learning disability; when they can no longer fish the rivers or hunt in the areas they have hunted for years with their families, that is a threat to our security, to our way of life. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, or a Republican, or an Independent, if you are going to hand your child a glass of water, you should be confident it won't cause cancer or other lifelong health issues. That is your family, and that is their safety. My amendment would simply require the EPA to report to Congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to products and equipment containing PFAS, including firefighting foam used on our military bases. The PFAS Action Act of 2019 does a great deal to meet the threat of PFAS contamination with robust legislation that responds to it. And my amendment will hold Federal agencies accountable for finding viable alternatives to prevent further PFAS contamination. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I have no speakers and I am prepared to close after the gentleman closes.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I ask for the bill to be supported, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, a War Powers Resolution that states that the President of the United States must consult Congress before going to war with Iran. This is simply what our Constitution requires. For me, this is not a theoretical exercise. My husband spent 30 years in the Army and retired as a colonel. We actually met on my third tour in Iraq, when I was a CIA officer. My stepdaughter is a brand-new Army officer. My son-in-law's unit is stationed at Al Asad Air Base, which was just targeted by ballistic missiles this week. If our loved ones are going to be sent to fight in any protracted war, the President owes the American public a conversation. The resolution we will be voting on today allows us to start that debate, as our Founders intended. Let me be clear: The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East. I have experienced these personally as a former CIA analyst. I served multiple tours in Iraq, three tours. My specialty is Iranian-backed Shia militias. I have followed Iran's destabilizing activity in Iraq up close for my entire professional career. I have watched friends and colleagues hurt or killed by Iranian rockets, mortars, and explosive devices. Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East and throughout the world. To that end, with Iran or with any other adversary, the United States always has the inherent right and obligation to self-defense against imminent armed attacks--always. The United States always maintains the right and the responsibility to ensure the safety of our diplomatic personnel and our Armed Forces serving abroad. When it comes to the matter of longer term war either as something that we choose as a Nation or as something that we find ourselves in, as Members of this body, we have a constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of military force. The Framers of our Constitution rightly believed that the power to declare war belongs in the Congress because this would ensure that the American people, through the legislators they elected, weigh the most significant decision a government can make. To this end, the resolution does a few simple things. First, it states that the President does not currently have authorization for war against Iran, which his own Secretary of Defense acknowledged in a congressional hearing last month. Second, it requires the President to get congressional authorization if he wants to conduct a protracted war with Iran. Third, it makes clear that the President maintains the authority to use force to prevent imminent attacks against the United States or our forces. As someone who has spent her career in national security, it is extremely important to me that this resolution in no way ties the President's hands or takes away any capabilities from our military commanders to respond in self-defense for ourselves and our allies. We have been at war for nearly two decades, which has spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations, as my colleague pointed out. In that time, Congress has voted only twice to authorize the use of military force, in 2001 and 2002. Congress has long abdicated its responsibility as laid out in the Constitution to make the hard decisions we owe our troops when it comes to authorizing war. We owe it to our military and to ourselves as a Nation to open this conversation on the authorization of military force, to provide our troops that clarity, and to abide by the Constitution that we have all sworn to protect. I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this resolution. I know it is a political time, but my attempt was to hew exactly to what our Founders intended.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, for the last 2 years, the single most common issue that Michiganders raise with me is the price of prescription drugs. Michiganders, regardless of party, are demanding that Congress do something about it. People literally clutch my arm at the grocery store to tell me how their son is rationing his insulin or their daughter couldn't go to summer camp because she couldn't afford the inhalers. That is why shortly after being sworn in in January, I started working in earnest on the issue. I am very proud to stand behind my colleagues and support H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act. This important legislation will drive down the cost of the country's most expensive drugs by allowing our government to negotiate for the very best prices. To be clear, the VA does the exact same thing. I am on military insurance, and the VA can negotiate for drug prices. Why not allow Medicare to do the very same thing? To put this in perspective, there are over 800,000 Michiganders living with diabetes, and common insulin medications can cost somewhere between $1,200 and $20,000 a year. This includes Sarah, a woman who lives in Holly, Michigan, where I live, who literally says she is being priced out of her life. Her insulin costs are higher than her rent per month. This bill, if passed, would allow the government to negotiate, bringing the price down to as little as $400 a year. Once the price is negotiated, all Americans, including Medicare recipients, benefit from that price. The bill would also improve Medicare coverage for seniors and lower their out-of-pocket costs. Two months ago, I cointroduced a bill that included vision coverage in Medicare. That means Medicare recipients, once every 2 years, will get an eye exam and one set of either glasses or contacts. I am very pleased that this was incorporated into this bigger bill along with other measures that would include hearing coverage and dental coverage for the first time. So, finally, preventive care will be part of the routine coverage for Medicare. To be clear, the bill pays for itself. Negotiation saves us, according to the CBO, $450 billion, which covers the additions to Medicare and still gives $10 billion for research and development to the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Chairman, you will hear my colleagues and Big Pharma say that you have to make a choice between research and lifesaving cures and the price of prescription drugs. That is a false choice, and anyone who watches TV and sees those annoying ads knows that the drug companies have plenty of places to cut their funding. Members from both parties in the House and Senate, and indeed the President, have said the right things when it comes to lowering drug prices. Now it is time to walk the walk.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4727) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a mentor-protege program, and for other purposes.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4727, the Department of Homeland Security Mentor-Protege Program Act of 2019. Since the very earliest days of the Department of Homeland Security, it has operated a mentor-protege program to encourage large businesses to help small businesses build their capacity to compete for government contracts. However, this important program was never codified into law. H.R. 4727 not only authorizes the existing program but improves it. Small businesses, including women-, veteran-, and minority-owned firms, are the backbone of our economy, but far too often, complex Federal contracting requirements shut them out of the Federal marketplace. Building and sustaining a reliable pool of small business vendors is critical to ensuring that DHS and its ever-evolving contracting needs are met and that America's security is enhanced. H.R. 4727 seeks to build and sustain this pool by incentivizing large businesses to provide technical, managerial, financial assistance, and subcontracting opportunities to small businesses. This bill requires participating businesses to commit to a mentor-protege relationship for 3 years to help establish long-term relationships between large and small contractors. Additionally, to ensure that Congress can monitor the effectiveness of the program in an ongoing way, it requires DHS to annually report on program participation and the benefits conferred upon small businesses. Enactment of H.R. 4727 will ensure the continued and lasting success of the mentor-protege program, a vital small business program. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, formally authorizing the Department of Homeland Security's mentor-protege program will ensure the continued success of this important small business program. DHS is to be commended in its earliest days for setting this program up. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin) for introducing this bill to help grow partnerships between small businesses and DHS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4727, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3318) to require the Transportation Security Administration to establish a task force to conduct an analysis of emerging and potential future threats to transportation security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3318, the Emerging Transportation Security Threats Act of 2019. Millions of people travel every day and rely on a secure transportation system to get them to their destination safely. Terrorists and other nefarious actors are constantly looking for new ways to attack and disrupt our Nation's transportation systems. All it takes is one successful attack for the public to lose confidence in the system as a whole. We must ensure that our security systems remain one step ahead of nefarious actors and that all entities responsible for transportation security are collaborating and sharing information in an effective manner to help prevent an attack. This bill is a good step in this direction. Importantly, it requires the TSA, in consultation with the intelligence community and other relevant Federal agencies, to establish a task force to analyze emerging and future threats to transportation security. Having individuals from across the Federal Government work together to assess emerging threats will help promote collaboration and efficiency across the agencies. After the analysis is complete, H.R. 3318 requires TSA to develop a threat mitigation strategy for each threat the task force identifies. These mitigation strategies will be important tools for TSA as they consider how best to prevent potential threats from occurring. Finally, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review to determine the costs and benefits of conducting screening prior to passenger arrival at an airport terminal. Mr. Speaker, we must do all that we can to prevent an attack on our transportation systems. This bill promotes collaboration to put our security agencies in a better position to identify and mitigate threats. Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close after the gentleman from Louisiana closes.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, securing our Nation's transportation systems from successful attack requires the collaboration of all stakeholders responsible for transportation security. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for bringing this legislation forward, and I urge passage of H.R. 3318. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4713) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make certain improvements in the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4713, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Authorization Act. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which I will call CRCL, is the primary office responsible for integrating civil rights and civil liberties protections into DHS policies, programs, and procedures. Every day, DHS personnel interact with millions of people from across the country and around the world. For this reason, it is imperative that the Department's CRCL officer has the authority to ensure that DHS pursues policies and programs that are in line with constitutionally protected civil rights and civil liberties. Under current law, the CRCL officer is authorized to assist the leaders throughout the Department in appropriately incorporating civil rights and civil liberties in DHS policies and procedures. However, there have been instances where CRCL was not afforded the opportunity to weigh in on DHS programs and policies that clearly impact individuals' and communities' civil rights and civil liberties. For example, it has been reported that CRCL was not consulted when the Trump administration instituted the family separation policy at the southern border. It has also been reported that the Office was not consulted prior to the January 2017 travel ban that barred individuals from Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The bill before us today seeks to ensure that CRCL has a seat at the table when new programs and policies are being considered within DHS. H.R. 4713, which was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), promotes the involvement of CRCL early in the policymaking process and ensures the Office is empowered, when necessary, to prevent DHS from pursuing policies that violate individuals' civil rights and civil liberties. To strengthen the integration of civil rights and civil liberties across the Department, H.R. 4713 requires the designation of CRCL officers within each DHS component. Additionally, H.R. 4713 would confer the CRCL officer the same authorities that currently rest with the DHS privacy officer to carry out its responsibilities. For instance, today, DHS components are not required to provide information to the CRCL officer that may be needed for a civil liberties investigation. Under H.R. 4713, the CRCL officer would have the authority to access all Department records necessary to carry out its work, including investigations. The CRCL officer would also have the authority, with the support of the DHS Secretary, to subpoena non-Federal entities to acquire information, documents, reports, and other materials necessary to carry out CRCL investigations. Lastly, the bill would increase transparency and accountability within the Department. Specifically, H.R. 4713 makes CRCL more responsive and accessible to members of the public who file complaints by requiring the Office to provide individuals with notices of receipt within 30 days of a complaint. The bill also requires CRCL to make publicly available its reports and reviews of Department programs and submit those reports to Congress. We know that the CRCL does important work and that caseload is growing. This year alone, the Office reviewed DHS policies relating to the humanitarian crisis at the border, disaster assistance, and a Departmentwide antiharassment policy, just to name a few items. Given Congress' strong interest in the work of the Department's CRCL officer, it is troubling that the last annual report that we have received here in Congress was for fiscal year 2017. Increased public reporting will allow us to work together to improve accountability of the Department. I appreciate that the Committee on Homeland Security came together on a bipartisan basis to support this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also take just a half a second to urge the Department of Homeland Security, in crafting their budget request for next cycle, to provide adequate resources for the CRCL to ensure that the office can do its work. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rest of my colleagues to join by passing H.R. 4713, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4402) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct an inland waters threat analysis, and for other purposes.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4402, the Inland Waters Security Review Act. This one is very close to my heart. Maritime security is an integral part of our homeland security; however, most terrorism assessments related to maritime security have focused on the risks of terrorism on the high seas or on coastal areas. In the United States, we have massive inland water systems that present unique security challenges. In Michigan, for instance, from where I hail, we have 3,288 miles of coastline, second only to Alaska-- take that, California and Florida--so inland waters are a big deal to us. Maritime security is not just for our oceans but also for our Great Lakes, which represent a huge part of our U.S.-Canada border. As a Michiganian who came to Congress to protect the Great Lakes, I am pleased to support this legislation, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to take a good, hard look at security threats to these vital waterways. Specifically, H.R. 4402 would require DHS to submit an analysis of the current and potential terrorism and criminal threats, as well as security challenges, with respect to our Nation's inland waters. In producing this assessment, DHS must consider technology, personnel, law enforcement cooperation, public-private partnerships, and challenges posed by geography. This assessment will provide Congress and the public with vital information regarding the threats facing our inland waters. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4402, a bipartisan bill that was reported out of committee by unanimous consent. I thank my colleague on the Homeland Security committee, Mrs. Lesko, for her leadership on this bill. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, America is home to over 3 million miles of lakes, rivers, and streams, including more than 25,000 miles of navigable waters. It is critically important that we have a complete picture of the security and criminal threats that inland waters face. H.R. 4402 would do just that. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for introducing this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.