Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I first want to remind people what we've said about statutory rape. When this bill was first introduced, it modified the long-standing rape exception to the Hyde amendment by adding the term ``forcible'' before the word ``rape.'' In other words, the victim of rape had to show wounds and other matters that she really was forcibly raped before she could be covered, but they changed that because there was such an outcry. But they have found another way to get to exclude other victims of rape. Just saying those words scandalizes me. The House Judiciary Committee report, which will be used by the courts to interpret the intent of this bill, says the bill will not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape, claiming that this reflects existing law, and of course it does not. Statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes because the young woman involved has not given consent and, indeed, is not allowed to because of her age. How dare we do that? Have they not suffered enough? The Hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any other kind of rape. In fact, a 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde amendment makes clear that it includes victims of statutory rape in the funding exemption. Now, if most people in the United States don't want their tax money used for abortions, they can relax. We've not been using tax money for 38 years. We're not going to change that with this bill. That's not the intent of this bill at all. It's simply the title, which is meaningless. What it does do is it increases taxes on middle class and lower- income women and their families, but it singles out small business employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. Nearly two-thirds of all voters polled--this is two-thirds--oppose this draconian change in the tax system for small business and individuals with plans that cover abortion. In fact, even most Republicans, tea party supporters, anti- abortion workers, and evangelical Christians oppose the tax increase. As the head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce wrote in a Hill column Monday: ``H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits'' that come from the new health care bill. [From The Hill's Congress Blog, May 2, 2011] H.R. 3 A Deliberate Attack on Small Business (By Frank Knapp, Jr.) After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax credits. Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for abortion. The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill. Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and continuity of policy is very significant. Small business owners do not have the expertise to closely examine healthcare plans to determine if abortion coverage is included. Such services are not labeled ``abortion'' but rather fall into numerous clauses in a health care policy from prescription drugs to outpatient surgery to maternity care that includes unforeseen complications. Small business owners are no more prepared to completely understand the fine print of their health insurance policies than members of Congress. Requiring a small business owner to try to understand the intricacies of their health insurance policies would require considerable time on their own or with an insurance agent (who also probably has no idea how to interpret the verbiage in the policy as it relates to abortion). Essentially H.R. 3 will cause a small employer to divert time from running the business. And if time is money, as we are all told, then H.R. 3 will be an increase in cost for small businesses offering health insurance. Small businesses that finally determine that their health insurance policy does in fact cover even one abortion service will be financially punished in one of two ways. Either they can keep their present policy and lose thousands of dollars in hard won tax credits or they will give up their current health plan and most likely have to pay higher premiums for a new plan. The latter will result from both re-underwriting by a new carrier and adding provisions now required in any new policy. This is especially true since the health insurance exchanges will not be in place until 2014 to increase competition for this business. H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits. Targeting small businesses for such punitive action, while ignoring big businesses that also receive tax benefits when offering health insurance, demonstrates a callous disregard for the ``backbone of our economy'', as members of Congress love to proclaim. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act, legislation that will bring the resources and expertise of the health sector to bear on the persistent problem of domestic and sexual violence. I invite you to join me today in the fight to preserve the fundamental dignity and safety of women across this great nation--a right to safety and security that should never be abrogated, and yet is under threat every day. Every nine seconds, a woman is abused in the United States. And every year, women are subjected to 4.8 million assaults and rapes by their intimate partners. According to 2009 statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of the 1,928 women murdered, 609 were wives murdered by their husbands; and 472 were girlfriends murdered by their significant other. While no sector of society is left untouched by violence against women, the health care system is particularly impacted by violence and abuse. Recent studies show that abuse victims use health care services between 2 and 2.5 times that of those who are not victims of abuse. More than 20 years of research connects child and adult exposure to domestic and sexual violence to asthma, stroke, heart disease, cancer, and depression. Intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking costs the health care system over $8.3 billion annually. In this period of elevated unemployment rates, there is particular cause for concern. The rate of violence in a relationship nearly doubles when a man is unemployed at least once. The rate of violence almost triples when a man experiences multiple periods of unemployment. In this economic recession, we have to be even more vigilant to prevent violence against women. The health care system is uniquely positioned to take a leading role in fighting and responding to the prevalence of violence. Victims know and trust their health care providers. Almost three- quarters of survivors say that they would like their health care providers to ask them about violence and abuse. Multiple clinical studies have shown that short interventions in the medical environment protect the health and safety of women. These interventions are short--between two and ten minutes--and effective. In repeated clinical trials, violence decreased and health status improved following simple assessment and referral protocols. Integrating these effective protocols into our health care system will save lives. Indeed, routine assessment for intimate partner violence has been recommended for health care settings by the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Nurses Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Efforts by the health care system to prevent and respond to violence and abuse against women are built upon the success of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first passed in 1994. Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has transformed our criminal justice and social service system. Between 1993 and 2008, the rate of intimate partner violence dropped 53%. Clearly, we are on the right track. Yet we need to do more. Despite the commitment of the health field to help victims of violence and abuse, a critical gap remains in the delivery of health care to victims. Health care providers often only address current injuries, without tackling the underlying cause of those injuries. This highlights the need to ensure that health care providers have the necessary training and support in order to assess, refer, and support victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Today, I introduced the ``Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act'' as the first step in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, helping the health care system to become a major player in the fight against violence against women. This bill would reauthorize three health programs; changes in the legislation will prioritize evaluation and accountability, as well as to expand the types of medical stakeholders engaged in this important effort. There should be no safe harbor for those who perpetrate domestic violence and sexual assault in the twenty-first century.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee and my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the urgent need to cut the Nation's deficit. We need to have serious discussions and make tough decisions about how we prevent a fiscal crisis in our country, and certainly we are beginning those discussions. But, sadly, today--and I must emphasize this--sadly, today this bill will end Medicare and cost shift to seniors $6,000 more a year. And why are they doing that? They get to pay for more tax breaks for Big Oil and millionaires, who are untouched in this country. That really is strange deficit reduction to me. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would start by ending the war in Afghanistan. That war is costing us $8 billion a month, and we're paying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan while our own infrastructure crumbles and while we feel we cannot afford to spend any of our money on those of us who live here and pay the costs. Just yesterday, the President presented another way to solve our fiscal crisis, as he laid out a budget that will responsibly reduce the spending and that simplifies the Tax Code, which is so important, so that, as the President said, and this is critical to understand, the taxes you pay are not going to be determined by the accountant you can afford. This is good news for all Americans. The President's budget puts us on the right track to ending the deficit crisis while investing in the long-term success of our economy and our country. Unfortunately, the thought is far too prevalent in this House that we need not invest in ourselves, that we can just shut down programs and everybody will be happy and singing in the streets. Not likely. But despite the responsible vision the President presented yesterday, we stand here today debating a reckless Republican budget that will destroy programs like Medicare while extending the tax cuts to corporations and America's rich. The budget starts with Medicare, eliminating the program that provides secure and affordable health care in old age. And it is eliminated. People who are on Medicare now will be grandfathered in. In the future what they will get will be a voucher with a certain amount of Federal money that goes with it. They are then required to go do the best they can in the private market to meet their health care needs. As we watch the cost in the private market climb, we would have to ask ourselves, Would this government help out, as Medicare would, by raising the money that the government puts in to replace it? No, it wouldn't. So under this plan a senior in the year 2021, and I hope there are a lot of them in this House who will follow me on this, will pay $6,000 more for the private insurance than they would have under Medicare. Now, if your insurance costs more than that, you had better find a way to pay your creditors because you're going to be on your own. Today's budget bill also threatens the future of Social Security. It includes a trigger mechanism that would allow Social Security cuts to be rushed through the Congress at a future date. This trigger is an abuse of the legislative process and puts Social Security on the chopping block for future cuts. Furthermore, in an act that defies all logic, this bill cripples the watch dogs that we created just last year to police the big banks who created the financial crisis. Why in the world would we want to do that? In addition to Medicare and Social Security, it cuts 70 percent of our investments in clean energy. It cuts 25 percent of our education funding. It cuts out 30 percent of our transportation funding, including significantly less money for a high-speed rail network designed to free us from foreign oil. By stopping investments in key competitive areas, our Nation is abandoning jobs and future economic opportunities that come with clean energy, with a new transportation network, and the invaluable work of educating our children. This is the burden 90 percent of Americans are asked to share. Meanwhile, the Republican budget would make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts that further cut taxes for corporations and America's richest individuals, including the oil companies. Do they need a Federal subsidy? I think not. Had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire in December, we would almost be able to cut our deficit in half within a few months from now. The Republican majority apparently believes that the ones who have the most should sacrifice the least. Some have claimed tax cuts create jobs. We hear that a lot around here. But analysis by respected experts, such as Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times tax expert David Clay Johnston, have shown that tax cuts do nothing to spur the economy and create jobs; they simply pad the wallets of the wealthiest among us in times of a national need. As we shape a budget for 2012, we must craft legislation that truly shares the entire Nation's sacrifice, not a budget that ends Medicare while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least and in many cases are asking not to be given it. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, later in this debate, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE, and veterans' health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, the Republicans have shown with their budget proposal that they're intent on using the deficit as a pretense to end Medicare. Democrats proposed an amendment in the Budget Committee to protect Medicare, TRICARE for the military and VA health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps. The Republicans all voted against it. Democrats tried again in the Rules Committee last night, but this rule does not allow the amendment to be brought to the House floor. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE and veterans' health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can put every Member of the House on record as to where they stand on health care and if they want to end Medicare or not. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote No. 263. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 263.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a different historic perspective. This bill is different, all right, and I want to try to explain that to you. But first, I want to say we weren't elected, any of us, to Congress to prove that we can barely keep the government open and alive. That was never why we were sent here. We're here to make America stronger. And looking at this bill, we are utterly failing in achieving that goal. In addition to the unnecessary and politically driven cuts in the legislation, the process that brought the bill to the floor is a mockery of regular order. Never before, again, let me say it, in the history of our Nation has this rule--what we're doing here today are three bills under one rule. You think we're going to vote for one, that would be the budget for the remainder of the year, but there are two other bills here to be voted on that I think you might be surprised at. It certainly took us by surprise. One of them completely defunds Planned Parenthood, having nothing in the world to do about cutting the deficit. The second one takes away the health care bill. A matter of that importance is added as a correction onto this bill. What they said they would like us to do is to correct legislation that has not even been passed. That takes a lot of imagination. But what is more serious, and I believe that is what they have done here, they have added an unprecedented provision that raises serious constitutional questions. Under this rule, and pay attention here, except I don't want children to believe it. This is not the way we do things. After the House and Senate have passed this bill and it comes back over, the House will hold it and will not send it to the President. They will hold it themselves, letting the government shut down again until the Senate votes to defund Planned Parenthood and to kill America's health care. Now, that is very similar to what we did here a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. It may have been last week for all I can remember, we have been working so hard. But what we did was probably one of the silliest things done in any legislative process in the world. They really passed a bill on this floor that said: we have already passed a bill and sent it to you, Senate. The Senate took the bill up, and it failed. So then the House response to that failure was: if we don't hear from you by date certain, then we're going to just say that the House bill is the law of the land. Now, all of you who have been to school know that what we do to pass a bill is the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill. If necessary, a conference committee reconciles the two bills, makes them the same, and it requires the President of the United States' signature to make it a bill. But not in this House. You can believe 10 impossible things before breakfast here easily because we're called upon to do that every day.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 225. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one of our freshmen, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).