Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that makes in order the Ganske-Dingell-Berry bipartisan Patient Protection Act substitute amendment. This amendment pays for patient protections and expanded MSA provisions provided in the bill by extending the regular customs taxes and closing tax loopholes for businesses set up solely for the purposes of tax relief. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I am opposed to the process the rule represents and the political cynicism it embodies. Make no mistake, this rule is designed to kill the bipartisan patients' bill of rights. This is death by a thousand cuts. By slicing away at the bipartisan-based bill, the leadership today once again will bury one of the most important pieces of legislation to face this body in a generation, all in an effort to appease the insurance companies and the HMOs. Mr. Speaker, there is no new agreement regarding the bipartisan patients' bill of rights. Yesterday's hastily arranged news conference by the administration was pure theater. Only one sponsor of the bipartisan patients' bill of rights, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), was included in the discussion with the administration. And even the gentleman from Georgia admitted to the Committee on Rules last night that he did not have a deal. And, indeed, until he saw what was written in the Committee on Rules, he would not have one. And at that moment last night he had no idea what would be written. And now with ink barely dry, the Republican leadership is demanding a vote. We wonder how many Members will see this so-called agreement before they have to vote. A dangerous pattern is developing in the Committee on Rules. Knowing that they do not have the support to kill important measures, like campaign finance reform or a balanced energy program that maintains the environment, the leadership cloaks itself in the darkness of night. When daylight breaks, they emerge with procedural hurdles designed to obfuscate, confuse, and ultimately bury these measures that may mean life and death for many of our constituents. The leadership knows the Senate will not agree to this version of the patients' bill of rights, and they know by passing the administration's version they can force a conference with the Senate, thereby relegating the patients' bill of rights to the legislative graveyard. The rule today makes in order only those amendments designed to kill the measure. There are poison pills. Each one weakens and dilutes patients' protections. The amendments block legal remedies in State courts under State laws, they hand over to HMOs the right to choose which court to adjudicate in, and they stack the deck against anyone who tries to enforce the patient protections we have worked for so long to secure. Moreover, the new Norwood bill fails to pay for any of the revenue losses it causes. In case Members are unaware, the surplus we worked so hard to secure the past 8 years is gone. In fact, the Treasury has had to borrow $51 billion just to pay for the tax rebate mailed just last week. Now, for the second time in 24 hours, we have blocked amendments by Democrats who want to be responsible and pay for the cost of the legislation we are considering. The House is now preparing to blow an additional $25 billion hole in the deficit. Democrats did offer responsible offsets but were voted down unanimously in the Committee on Rules. Where will this money come from? The only place left after the massive tax cuts enacted by Congress are the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. I want to remind my colleagues this is about real people, about real lives, and as I stated earlier, a matter of life and death for many. H.R. 2563 would make a difference for the man who goes to the emergency room suffering a heart attack and the woman who has to wait to get permission to see her OB-GYN for a gynecological problem and the parent whose child is being shunted from doctor to doctor by an insurer. It would help patients obtain speedy reviews when potentially lifesaving treatment is denied or when a financially crippling bill will not be covered by the insurer. The bipartisan bill would make a difference in the day-to-day lives of the people we represent. And for this body to treat this measure so cavalierly defies conscience and defies belief. Make no mistake, this agreement is a win for the special interests and especially the HMOs and insurance companies who support with their contributions this new bill. It is a loss for the American people on one of their biggest issues, and a sad day for America, patients, doctors, and virtually every family around the country. One of the most egregious things is they have held HMOs to different standards than they are holding doctors and hospitals. The HMOs alone among the health care providers will be shielded from the consequences of their own bad decisions, but the doctors and the hospitals are left hanging out to dry. And I understood the AMA has just opposed this bill. HMOs will also have an extraordinary care standard, not a medical standard, but what any ordinary insurance company would do. And in fact what is being given to them goes to no other industry in the United States. And by waiving away the State laws, many people in the United States where they have good strong State laws will be worse off than had this bill not passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I will be blunt: This is a bad bill and a bad rule. This is Congress again playing scientist, and I urge defeat of the rule and defeat of the underlying bill in its current form. In its efforts to address the issue of human cloning, my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has managed to duplicate the controversy arising from the administration's debate over whether to ban federally funded stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, there is a strong consensus in Congress that the cloning of human beings should be prohibited. For many people, the prospect of human cloning raises a specter of eugenics and genetic manipulation of traits like eye color or intelligence, and none of us want to see these types of abuses. Yet H.R. 2505 and its excessive fear of science and the possibilities of scientific research attempts to deprive the American people of their hope for cures and their faith in the power of human discovery. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act goes far beyond a ban on cloning of an individual known as reproductive cloning. This legislation actually also bans stem cell research and, finally, would prohibit the importation of products that are developed through this kind of research. As a former scientist, I am profoundly concerned about the impact this proposal would have on our Nation's biotechnical industry. If we ban stem cell research, we risk ceding the field of medical research to other nations. Top scientists in the field are already leaving the United States due to the mere threat that this type of research may be banned. If H.R. 2505 is passed, we must accept the fact that preeminent scientists, and, indeed, entire research facilities will move overseas, in order to pursue their studies. If we stifle our Nation's research efforts, patients will suffer as well. This research holds the potential to treat diseases that afflict millions of Americans, including diabetes, cancer, heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, brain or spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis. If scientists overseas were to develop a cure for cancer using stem cells from a cloned embryo, Americans would be banned from taking advantage of that cure here in the United States because we could not import it. Surely we should not deny our constituents access to life-saving cures. Moreover, we should be prepared for the evolution of two classes of patients, those with the resources to travel abroad to receive the cure and those who are too poor and must therefore stay in the United States to grow sicker and die. Fortunately, we have before us a balanced responsible alternative, the substitute offered by our colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). The House of Representatives stands today at a crossroads in our support for scientific endeavors. Mr. Speaker, we really should not be debating this at all. None of us is equipped to do so. We simply do not know enough, and for this House to take the step that we are about to take today is unconscionable. We must not allow our fears about research to overwhelm our hopes for curing disease. We must not isolate this Nation from the rest of the scientific world by banning therapeutic cloning. Make no mistake, we are sailing into unchartered waters. Our decision here today could have consequences for generations to come. Under this inadequate rule, the majority is giving us a meager 2 hours to hold this momentous debate. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on H.R. 2505. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman from North Carolina has more speakers?

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).