Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we had a plan. We had a fine plan. We just could not bring it out here before the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). (Ms. McCOLLUM 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 Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK 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. Tauscher). (Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, I want to finish my statement.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, with the rule before us today, this body is being asked to hand over one of the most popular government programs in history to private insurance companies. Medicare is a critical program, a program that benefits a wide spectrum of our constituents and one that American families have come to depend on for their loved ones in need. But today, in a cynical nod to the pharmaceutical industry, the leadership has shut out any meaningful debate. No Democrat substitute will be allowed, no amendments to guarantee affordable prescription drugs for our seniors will be permitted, and anyone voicing dissent has been silenced. Indeed, in the wee hours of this morning in the Committee on Rules, one of my colleagues made it clear that he wanted the free market to determine drug prices, and declared that Medicare was, attention, a Soviet-style program, echoing the sentiment made by his former leader, Newt Gingrich, that Medicare should be allowed ``to wither on the vine.'' Make no mistake: the contempt for Medicare runs deep within this leadership, as it does for other vital social programs. By calling Medicare Soviet-style, we can be certain that this is not a mandate to ensure the future of the program, but rather, the opposite.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 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 such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. But rather the opposite, a call to leave seniors to the mercies of the private sector and the free market, rather than guarantee them livable, affordable health care. My constituents and others around the Nation are reeling from public programs that have been turned over to the so-called free market. Utility rates, cable rates, you name it, the free market has ensured exorbitant prices with diminished service. Pensions and retirement security have taken a similar beating. Moreover, the timing of this proposal could not be worse. The proposal places the program in the private sector at a time when private insurers have dropped Medicare+Choice beneficiaries by the thousands. Private insurers will inevitably alter plans and move in and out of markets, leading to unpredictability for our seniors. A given drug might be covered one month, but not the next. Premiums could double from year to year without warning. The rule before us is one of the most heavy-handed procedures to come out of the Committee on Rules, and given the last few weeks, that is saying something. Amendment after amendment was blocked from floor consideration. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) had a remarkably sensible idea of requiring that prescription drug plans negotiate with pharmaceuticals for lower prescription drug prices, a necessity before we put a Federal program on top of them. Canada does it, and France does it, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain. Virtually every developed country in the world has committed itself to negotiating lower drug prices for its citizens. Even the United States demonstrated remarkable success when negotiating Cipro prices during the anthrax attacks last fall. But under this rule, this very sensible amendment will not be permitted. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the underlying bill prohibits the Federal Government from pushing for lower prescription prices. My colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), attempted to ensure that all seniors have the option of prescription drug coverage, especially in those geographic areas where insurance companies choose not to offer a plan. Under the current bill, there is no guarantee that seniors will have access to coverage at all if insurers should decide not to cover their area. The amendment will never see the light of day, however, under this rule. Instead, we are left with a fundamentally flawed document that fails our constituents on every level. The proposed plan would be administered through either HMOs or drug-only insurance plans. The fact that drug-only insurance plans do not exist in the private market does not deter proponents from their privatization agenda. In fact, they are so bent on privatizing the drug benefit that they are prepared to bribe private plans with a subsidy as large as 99.99 percent in order to get them to offer drug coverage to seniors, regardless of the quality of the service or extent of the benefit. Mr. Speaker, a little more history may be in order. The Medicare program was originally created because the private sector did not offer affordable and reliable health insurance to the elderly and the disabled. Health care has certainly changed in the past 30 years, but what has not changed is the fact that the private market does not want to ensure people who are old, disabled, and likely to need care. Mr. Speaker, the inadequacies in this bill continue, and I will highlight them briefly. The measure penalizes seniors who receive aid with prescription drug costs from charitable, church, or State programs by not counting the costs paid by those parties toward the individual's Medicare deductible. Seniors may actually have to drop out of programs like New York's Elderly Prescription Insurance Coverage, the EPIC program, in an attempt to obtain their Medicare benefits. The proposal has numerous gaps that leave seniors without coverage while requiring them to pay premiums. For example, earlier this month I received a letter from a 71-year-old constituent who must take medication to prevent a recurrence of a potentially dangerous, deadly fungal lung infection. The drug costs her nearly $1,000 a month. Under the majority plan, this woman would still pay well over $3,000 a year for this medication, and in addition, she would have to drop out of New York's program, which is currently helping her with these expenses. The proposal includes copayments, premiums, and deductibles that will be unaffordable for many low- and middle-income seniors. The $35-per- month premium is a suggested amount and certainly not a guarantee. Insurers could choose to charge double or triple that amount if they chose to. The bill is opposed by numerous respected organizations, including the National Council on Aging, AARP, Families U.S.A., and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the majority has taken the proverbial sow's ear and is trying to convince America it is a silk purse. My constituents are not fooled, and I hope my colleagues will not be, either. 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 yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS 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. Napolitano). (Mrs. NAPOLITANO 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 Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we will watch it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard). (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD 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 Florida (Mrs. Thurman). (Mrs. THURMAN 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 New York (Mrs. McCarthy). (Mrs. McCARTHY of New York 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 Oregon (Ms. Hooley). (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2578, legislation to raise the debt ceiling by $450 billion without engaging in a real debate on how to get our nation's fiscal house back in order. Mr. Speaker, before the House signs off on permanently raising the debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, I think it would be helpful to take a step back and look at how we got here. It was not September 11th or the war on terrorism or even last year's recession that caused this predicament. Months before the impact of September 11th was realized in the budget, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill asked Congress to raise the debt limit by $750 million in response to deepening deficits that resulted primarily from the President's tax cut. By the Administration's own estimates, last year's tax cut--the one that I cautioned ``left no room for error''--is responsible for 43 percent of the total deterioration in our fiscal picture. So, here we are today, being told by the majority that if we vote against S. 2578, we are being irresponsible. Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Under their watch, our budget experienced the most dramatic reversal in history, losing $4 trillion in projected surpluses in one year. To my mind, permanently raising the debt ceiling in the absence of a plan to get us back to surpluses is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Mr. Speaker, last year, the majority's budget asserted that there would be no need to increase the debt limit until 2009. But here we are, poised to consider legislation raising the debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion without being given a chance to offer a plan. Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful that the majority has decided to block debate on a credible plan to address the short-term crisis and undo our present fiscal mess. My Democratic colleagues, Representatives Spratt and Moore, sought to offer a measure that would immediately increase debt limit by $150 billion with the requirement that the President submit a revised budget that is in balance by 2007 without borrowing from Social Security. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this reasonable alternative never saw the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I am simply unwilling to write the federal government a virtual blank check that may or may not keep us in the black until the midterm elections in November. Mr. Speaker, every day, Americans pay $1 billion in interest on our national debt. That's about 16 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes--just to make the interest payment, not even to pay down the debt itself. Moreover, the indirect costs of raising the debt limit and the return to deficits prevent long-term interest rates high for Americans struggling to make mortgage, car, or credit card payments, even as the Federal Reserve has dramatically reduced short term rates. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this measure and forcing the Republican Leadership to work with the minority to develop a real plan to deal with the deficits that now stretch as far as the eye can see. Until we have a realistic budget that eliminates those deficits, increasing the statutory debt ceiling is pure folly.