Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I cannot.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, I have three.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more speaker.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. As soon as you have.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more speaker, then I hope that you will close and then I will close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to 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. I did misspeak. Mr. Rangel has come in, and I would like to give him 1\1/2\ minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me yield 1 minute to Mr. Rangel, the gentleman from New York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind us that we have been all this time debating about three lines in the bill. If you want to take the nastiness out of the Senate bill, this is the bill you have to vote for. I ask a ``yes'' vote from all my colleagues on both the previous question and on the rule. I move the previous question and the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away. I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary loopholes because those who oppose the legislation can vote against it on final passage. We must consider the rule. We must pass this important legislation today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a 1-page document explaining why the requirements in the bill are not unconstitutional. Attack: The individual responsibility requirement is unconstitutional. Response: The arguments that have been raised against the constitutionality of an individual responsibility requirement are meritless. For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling health insurance. The requirement for individuals to contribute to their own health insurance coverage is clearly constitutional. Over 70 years of Supreme Court precedent has recognized that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A requirement that individuals purchase health insurance is both commercial and economic in nature--indeed, few things are more critical to our nation's economic health. The failure of individuals to obtain health insurance has a substantial effect on our national economy. The U.S. spends over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year--more than $7,000 per person and more than 16 percent of our GDP. The economy loses billions of dollars every year because of the costs of treatment for uninsured Americans. And currently, individuals can forego buying insurance, leaving hospitals-- and ultimately Americans who do buy insurance--on the hook for expensive emergency procedures. That drives up insurance premiums for all Americans. Mandating health insurance affects interstate commerce in several ways. Covering more people will reduce the price of insurance by addressing free-riders who rely on emergency care and other services without paying for all the costs, which drives up costs for people with insurance. It will also ensure an insurance pool with a full cross section of healthy and sick subscribers, which will help keep down costs for everyone. Even the conservative Supreme Court has recognized that the federal government has broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. In 2005, the Court held that the federal government can prohibit medical marijuana grown at home and consumed personally under the Commerce Clause (Gonzalez v. Raich). Justice Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of Congressional power, even voted to affirm Congress' authority to regulate in that case. Certainly health insurance coverage has a greater effect on the national economy than people growing medical marijuana in their backyard. Congress also has authority to impose an individual responsibility requirement under its Power to Tax and Spend for the General Welfare (Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.). Now I am so happy to introduce and yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from Rhode Island, who is not only a valued Member of this House but whose father, as we know, devoted his congressional life to health care for all Americans.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).