Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Priorities, Mr. Speaker. Again and again the majority has used legislation and procedural tactics to force its priorities through the body. The majority passed another massive tax cut for the wealthiest people that provided no relief for low-income families with children and allowed practically no debate on the bill. They passed a hollow plan to write a blank check to the pharmaceutical companies and called it a prescription drug plan, again allowing little debate. Last night the Committee on Rules demonstrated that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are more important than education, the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, public health, the needs of older Americans, and help for those who are suffering due to the impotent economy. H.R. 2660 falls far short of the funding levels needed to sustain important programs that should be our priorities. The bill increases education funding, but the increase falls $700 million short of the funding increase promised in the budget resolution for the 2004 fiscal year. These funding levels do leave children behind. H.R. 2660 provides an increase in Title I spending, but it is approximately $300 million less than the $1 billion promised in the budget. Because the programs designed to leave no child behind are again underfunded, school districts will lose money, and our children will lose educational opportunities. My district in New York will lose more than $700,000. The Niagara Falls City School District will lose over $100,000, and Buffalo City schools will face a loss of almost $900,000. Only $1 billion of the $2.2 billion budgeted for special education is appropriated. Pell grants allow 307,234 students to attend New York colleges and universities, yet the funding for Pell grants is frozen at current levels. And the current levels of funding cover less than 40 percent of the cost of a college education at a 4-year public university. The legislation also funds public health programs, which are truly some of the most important services that the Federal Government provides. However, H.R. 2660 provides few additional resources for health services and public health. Quality health care is out of the reach of far too many Americans. Recent press accounts have highlighted severe problems with the oversight of the State Medicaid programs, and States face financial crises. Over 3 million people in New York depend on Medicaid, and, across the Nation, 4 million children rely on State Children's Health Insurance Programs, SCHIP, for health care. In New York, over a half a million children rely on SCHIP. There are no increases in funding for childhood immunization grants or for the program that provides the scholarships for nursing students, despite the serious shortage of nurses in this country. Despite these tax cuts which were made, actually what we are doing is shifting the burden to the middle class, and then, obviously, the programs that we care about are being cut, and while we are doing that, issuing these tax cuts that were supposed to do such wonderful things, the economy slowly staggers along. And the result of the stagnant economy is that 6.4 percent of all Americans are unemployed. That is the highest number in almost a decade. We have the largest deficit we have ever had in our history, and more than 9 million Americans who want to work and support their families cannot find work. Are we going to help these millions of Americans until they are able to find jobs? No. We either freeze the funding levels for programs to help low-income Americans at the same level as last year, or it reduces funding levels. And because of inflation, the bill would leave the victims of poor economic policy with fewer resources. Natural gas prices are rising and will likely be 50 percent higher by this winter, but the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program was slashed by 10 percent. This bill will literally leave 635,000 New York households that rely on LIHEAP in the cold. And believe me, last year it was cold. Before the July 4 recess, the older Americans were given a hollow promise of insurance coverage for the astronomically high cost of prescription drugs. Now, H.R. 2660 comes back again to take a swipe at elderly Americans. Almost 200 million older, home-bound Americans rely on Meals-on-Wheels. The allocated funding levels for the Meals-on- Wheels program would force serious cuts in the services, resulting in 4.6 million fewer meals delivered. Our priorities are not providing fewer meals to home-bound elderly Americans. Last night the Committee on Rules passed an open rule for the consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations for the 2004 fiscal year. Also last night the committee rejected an amendment to add $5.5 billion to this appropriations bill. The additional funds could be added by reducing the tax cuts from $88,000 a year to $60,000 for those making more than $1 million. Because the majority refused to grant a waiver in the open rule, the amendment is out of order. The $5.5 billion in additional funds from the big tax cut would go to education, to public health, to services for low-income and elderly Americans, and more. Meals-on-Wheels would keep rolling. Education funds would go to the children and make sure that truly no child is left behind, and would provide the health care immunization shots for children, and it would keep houses warm during the icy winter. Every day we as elected representatives make choices. The appropriations process requires us to make difficult choices sometimes. But the Federal Government, we know, has a finite amount of money, and we must choose wisely how to allocate the resources. The appropriations process for the 2004 fiscal year is incredibly more difficult because Federal funds have been severely depleted. The billions of dollars in tax cuts given to the wealthiest Americans have depleted it. This House has chosen to fund millionaires rather than fund programs for elderly Americans, the 9 million people unemployed, and children's minds and bodies. That is the wrong choice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 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, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) better hope for that because otherwise America will be pretty disappointed to find that they have been left behind, not just the children but the elderly, the middle class, all the rest of them, and certainly the unemployed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Linder

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, each week in the Committee on Rules, I see my colleagues using procedure to kill substance and stifle debate. And again last night, the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This closed rule prohibits all amendments. I am again concerned to see that our obligation to debate and deliberate is sacrificed in the name of efficiency. The legislative calendar for the month of July is very full. We have much work to do, but this does not diminish or negate our obligations as Members of this body. The Committee on Rules rejected an amendment to transfer funds from the general administration account in order to carry out the Technology Assessments Act. The closed rule prevents offering that same amendment from the floor. We lose the opportunity to consider the amendment and to discuss the Office of Technology Assessment for the Congress and the office's mission to consider the impacts of technology. The closed rule also bars an amendment that would apply the Buy American Act to procurement of manufactured goods by the House. Who could disagree that we should buy American-made products for our offices, especially when unemployment is at 6.4 percent, the highest it has been in 9 years, and the economy continues to limp along? Should we have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the desks in our offices, paid for by the American taxpayers, should be made in America? Sure we should. Other issues in this bill merit discussion. The funding level for the Capitol Police is lower than in the 2003 fiscal year, and the funding is almost $80 million less than the Capitol Police requested. The closed rule provides only 1 hour of debate but will not allow this to be discussed. With the continual terrorist threats to the U.S., we should at least discuss the funding needs of the Capitol Police. We ask them to put their lives at risk every day to protect our staff, our visitors, and us; yet we refuse to take the time to discuss their funding levels. H.R. 2657 provides the Architect of the Capitol no additional funds for the Visitors Center. Today's Washington Post published an article on the delays and cost overruns on this project, which we are all concerned about. The Committee on Appropriations expressed serious concerns about the management of the project; and, indeed, there are certainly questions to be asked. We still have to ask questions about the expatriate corporations benefiting from this massive construction project. All of these serious concerns warrant further deliberation on the funding levels for the Architect of the Capitol; but, unfortunately, the Committee on Rules continues to trample on the rights of the minority. This venerable institution warrants a fair, open, and deliberative process in considering legislation; and I regret this is another opportunity lost. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). (Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez.) (Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for most of us. A program that has served America well and has given peace of mind and good health care to seniors for over 40 years is under threat today; and actually, what we know is going to be before us is the death of Medicare. One of the saddest parts about this bill today is that the Democrats have no role in it. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules, or this morning, actually, at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought that they could use to strengthen the bill, I apologize to you that there is no possibility in the world that you could do it. I hope that you did not hate yourself this morning for all the sleep that you lost for nothing. Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration. The other body, on the other hand, has spent over 2 weeks debating similar legislation. In stark contrast, we meet when nobody is around, up in the attic, as someone said today, and are permitted only 3 hours to discuss the largest overhaul of Medicare in its history. The people we represent would be disgusted if they understood how this issue is being handled. We are not naming a post office here. We are considering, as I said, the most important change to Medicare since its creation. This decision will affect so many people. It is no simple undertaking, and it certainly deserves more debate than allowed by this rule. To add even more confusion to the messy process, the Committee on Rules incorporated the so-called Health Savings Account bill into the rule for the Medicare overhaul legislation, so what we are doing here are two rules. So-called health savings accounts would create a new tax advantage, personal savings accounts, used to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses. At first glance, perhaps it sounds innocuous. But when you look at the fine print, you see that it basically amounts to a $72 billion tax cut over the next 10 years while the Federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Even worse, it is a tax break with a destructive purpose: to threaten the traditional employer-based health care by actually encouraging companies to reduce their employees' health coverage. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most egregious problem with the legislation before us is it does nothing to address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. Oh, sure, they will tell us that we can import drugs from Canada, but the fact of the matter is that an amendment inserted into the Senate bill by one of our Senators says that it cannot be done unless it is certified by the Secretary of HHS, who has stated already that he will not do it. Therefore, any debate today about being able to import drugs is absolutely a farce. The consumer price index on which Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are based rose 98 percent, and the prescription drug costs that are crippling older Americans rose even higher. Seniors on Medicare are expected to spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade. Today's Washington Post tells a story of Marie Urban of Cleveland. After her housing and Medicare payment, she has $459 a month for utilities, food, car insurance, taxes, and medication. She told The Post that some months she has 87 cents left over. This is wrong. She deserves better. A few years ago, as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at fractions of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested than we could accommodate, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication. We are fortunate to live in an age when science provides the medications that cure illness and improve the quality of life and extend life. But the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot afford to buy it. The skyrocketing price of prescription drugs is the number one concern of American seniors and, indeed, most Americans. H.R. 1 does nothing to freeze or reduce the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs. In fact, again, the idea of going to Canada and handing it out with one hand and taking it away with the other is something that the drug companies will be very happy about, because they have fought in every possible venue to keep the reimportation of drugs. At the same time, we hoped that we might do what the Veterans Administration has done with great success. By negotiating for the people that they represent with the drug companies, they have been able to save many of their veterans a great deal of money. Seniors fear this bill is a rush to privatize Medicare. We saw the flop of Medicare+Choice when many, many private insurance companies pulled out completely on senior citizens, leaving many of them in parts of the United States completely uncovered. Indeed, they have told us again, they do not want to cover a prescription drug program. One hundred percent of the people they cover will buy medicine. This is not what they consider a good business proposition. Forty years ago, Congress created the Medicare program because private industry would not offer health insurance to older people. Companies saw the older people as a threat to their profits. We should have learned this lesson in the 1960s, because nothing has changed; and now we are today taking away what is probably the most important issue to senior citizens, will they be able to get health care. Don Young, who is the President of the Health Insurance Association of Americans, quoted here often, has said, ``We caution Congress against relying on drug only insurance as a mechanism to deliver a benefit.'' Ira Loss, an analyst with Washington Analysis, said, ``The private sector that is supposed to be excited about this isn't. It creates a new benefit program built around insurance products that do not exist and are likely to never exist.'' Mr. Speaker, this proposal would replace Medicare's guaranteed coverage with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance, assuming that there is an insurer willing to sell it to you. But those who want the traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be forced to pay higher premiums. We have no idea, for example, what Part B would cost because it is not in the bill, which is intended to force the beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare and into private insurance. Mr. Speaker, senior citizens do not want this legislation. We have all received call after call and letter after letter beseeching us to oppose this plan. They did not contact me because they need prescription drug coverage. They called and wrote me because they know this bill will not provide them with the help they desperately need. According to the Consumers Union, the average Medicare user spends $2,318 for prescription medicine. Under this plan, the out-of-pocket drugs would rise to $2,954 for the average senior on Medicare. So this program is a placebo, not a cure, legislation crafted to provide political cover for the majority, not provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. Some may argue that this is something better than nothing, but it is only a start and, frankly, what we have in Medicare has not been that bad. But as many of our constituents say, a bad bill is worse than no bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill that will raise premiums and reduce their choices and dismantle Medicare is a very bad bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). (Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis). (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette). (Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)