Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the previous speaker. I feel very badly about his constituent whose health care price has gone up, but I want to say that that's because the insurance companies raise those prices. ObamaCare is not yet in effect for small businesses.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm sorry, I haven't got the time. It's all allocated. But I will talk to you later about it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, it's not. It's the insurance coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. To respond to what we just heard--and none of us are exempt; I don't know what in the world that's all about--I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to vote on what the country really needs right now: a bill to create more American jobs. The SEAM Act would help to not only create more jobs, but more American-made products, by creating tax credits for productive American manufacturers in the energy innovation industry. I ask the majority to stop these political games--this bill has had no committee action and no discussion; it is simply brought back over and over--and work with us for a change to put some smart policies forward. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if my colleague has any more speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to be very succinct. What you have heard today is probably the same kind of debate that took place in this Chamber on both Social Security and Medicare. Those two programs, Medicare operates with a 2 percent overhead. Most private insurance operates between 20 and 25 percent. It is a bargain, and it has lifted millions of seniors in this country out of poverty. This bill will provide for us the type of health care that we deserve and that we need based on outcomes and not on a plethora of tests each doctor gives. I am absolutely astonished on what we have heard today, but there are a couple of things I really want you to remember. One, today we have spent $53 million on this debate on just to repeal this law--$53 million. If you are frugal at all--and I am--believe me, that burns me up. I can think of many, many things we can use that for. Almost 7 million jobs have been created in health care since this bill passed--7 million. Four million more are to come. The two things that we really want to do is provide good health care and good jobs in this economy. For heaven's sake, let's not see this bill up again. Take a good, hard look at it. See all the benefits in it for all of your constituents. You don't want to go home and tell the women and tell the seniors and tell the people with preexisting conditions that you don't care about them.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Vote ``no.''

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate 14 distinguished high schools in Monroe County, New York for being included in Newsweek and The Daily Beast's 2013 list of America's Best High Schools. I am honored to represent this community, which values the enrichment of a quality education and demands the best of its students, and in turn, its future workforce. America's Best High Schools are schools that have proven to be the most effective in turning out college-ready graduates. An astounding 14 schools from my congressional district were chosen, including: Brighton High School, Brockport High School, Churchville-Chili Central School, East Rochester Jr./Sr. High School, Eastridge High School, Fairport High School, Irondequoit High School, Penfield High School, Pittsford Sutherland High School, Pittsford Mendon High School, Rush-Henrietta Senior High School, School of the Arts, Webster Thomas High School, and Webster Schroeder High School. These remarkable schools scored at the top of the country in graduation rates, college acceptance rates, and enrollment and success in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, among several other criteria. Rochester's commitment to education is truly remarkable; thanks to the dedication of the many school administrators, teachers, parents, and students who understand that a quality high school education provides a critical foundation for future opportunities and endeavors, both personal and professional. Please join me in congratulating these 14 outstanding Rochester area high schools and let us strive to provide all children with an education of the caliber offered by these schools.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Texas, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I really begin, I want to make clear that what the President said in his statement of disapproval and veto, that he would not negotiate over this foolish bill, that he was not going to negotiate what to do if we go into default because his intent, as well as the intent of the Democratic Party, is not to default. It's right honest, but instead of really talking about today lifting the debt limit, we're going to discuss the usual do-nothing legislative agenda: let's fiddle while Rome burns and pass a one-House bill that the Senate will never touch and the President will never see, which is what we do here once, sometimes twice, a week. But today, I think they've really outdone themselves. Instead of wasting time on a bill that can be characterized as redundant like we do the 35, 36 times that we vote against health care, the majority is now considering legislation that treads into the realm of the precarious. Regardless of whether the legislation before us is approved by this Chamber, the very fact that the majority is proposing policies to manage the economic default is by itself a threat to our economy. Both the Treasury and outside experts have made clear that picking and choosing which debts we pay is legally questionable and logistically impossible. The President has, as my colleague said, warned that in the highly unlikely event that this bill reaches his desk, he will unequivocally veto it. But instead of listening to this fact, the majority is moving ahead with a proposal and a debate that puts us on the road to default. They do so even as The Washington Post reports this morning that the economy is improving, revenues are up and spending is down, which undermines the stream of doom that we hear. But today the irresponsible actions of the majority are, once again, needlessly encouraging the economic recovery. Let me be clear: the legislation does not raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way to take away the threat of default; but, instead, the bill guarantees that when we hit the debt ceiling, our foreign creditors and the Social Security trust fund will be paid in full while the well-being of millions of Americans--vendors and people we owe legitimate debts to--are left to chance. Under this legislation, the majority is actively putting the interests of China before millions of Americans, including Active military servicemembers, veterans, and even the men and women who clean the floors of the Capitol and fold napkins in the Members' dining room. Every single one of these citizens relies upon their paycheck and upon the United States Government to pay the debts in order to put the food on their tables and to make ends meet. With today's bill, the majority is proposing that the welfare of these Americans be left to chance while they protect China and foreign bondholders from the threat of default. In addition, the majority is endangering the regular payments owed to infrastructure projects, food safety inspectors, education programs, and public health research. It is a reckless plan that would directly hurt the most vulnerable members of society who already struggle in the sequestration to get by. Furthermore, the act of choosing whom we will repay when we default on our debt is in and of itself an act that will threaten to throw our economy back into recession. During the recent hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, the MIT economist Simon Johnson warned that if we default on even a portion of our debt, the unemployment rate would more than double, countless companies would go out of business, and investors would flee the United States. Meanwhile, The Economist magazine has written: Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force immediate spending cuts equal to 6 percent of GDP. Not only would that threaten to send the economy back into recession; it would also deprive doctors, pensioners, contractors, and millions of others the money needed to meet their own obligations and set off a chain reaction of defaults. Even a few days' default would roil the global financial system which relies on Treasuries in countless transactions. The mere possibility could incite skittish investors to dump their holdings, driving up interest rates. Tony Fratto, a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush, said: Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contractual payments, and so forth in order to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political catastrophe. It should be clear by now that the act of even bringing a bill such as this to the floor for debate can scare investors and endanger our economy. This type of economic brinksmanship is extremely dangerous. The majority's games are compounded by their uninterest in repealing the sequester. As we speak, the sequester is preventing thousands of cancer patients from receiving lifesaving treatment and keeping thousands more children from receiving the education--I think 70,000 is the figure--through the Head Start program. These are some of the devastating cuts that don't go away simply because the majority refuses to take action and repeal the sequester in full. Tragically, the majority's willingness to endanger our economy is not new. In August of 2011, the majority headed down the road to default for the first time in our history by threatening to default on our debts. Despite the opportunity to reach compromise with the administration, the majority claimed a zero-sum political game that had serious consequences. And because of their actions, August 2011 was the worst month for job creation in 3 years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 2,000 points, and our Nation's credit rating was downgraded for the very first time. The effects were very real and very dangerous. A responsible legislative body would never head down that road again a second time. But that's exactly what we're doing here today. For more than 225 years, this Chamber has been dedicated to preserving the order and stability of our government even in the most partisan of times. Despite their differences, generation after generation of legislators has known that when it comes to the integrity of our Nation, we must succeed together or else fall alone. Dangerously in the last 2 years, the majority has taken step after step to undermine the central pillar of our government, including the proposal that they put forward today. We've frequently done so through a closed legislative process. And while the majority states that today's legislation is moving forward under a structured rule, it is only structured for the Members of the majority. For the second time this week, the majority is bringing forth a rule that denies consideration of a single Democrat amendment. As a result, we debate a dangerous proposal and one that puts the interests of China before the welfare of the American people and the economic stability of the United States. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House was asked if the proposal laid before us would indeed pay China before paying U.S. troops. He admitted that it would and said: Listen, those who have loaned us money, like in any other proceeding, if you will, court proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. The same thing here. That simple statement tells us what we need to know. I refuse to put China's interests before the interests of the American people, and I refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us one step closer to default. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, one of our impressive freshmen, Mr. Huffman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk about what it is we're trying to pay for on our side: Pay and benefits for 1.4 million active duty troops and 780,000 troops in reserves will not be paid while China is paid; Benefits to 3.4 million disabled veterans; 1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing assistance; Earned payments to American small businesses; Payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who provide care to seniors with Medicare; Payments to schools for nutritious lunches served to 32 million children; Payments to 44,000 National Institutes of Health grantees. With that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time?