Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that I did hear my colleague say how concerned we all were about corruption and how much we really wanted to do about it. Unfortunately, for the past 3 years nothing on your side was done about it. It was never looked into, despite the fact that our side brought it up numerous times, trying to get bills to the floor and trying to discuss what was going on in Iraq in terms of the loss of taxpayer money. I regret that that has not been acknowledged. This is the first time that we have literally brought up the actual corruption in the Iraq Government.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I simply want to say that the purpose of this resolution is to call attention to the fact that the State Department of the United States of America has refused to respond to subpoenas from a congressional committee. And if we are going to have a free flow of discussion on Iraq and corruption, as my colleague suggested, then we need to have the State Department give us the documents that we need to be able to do so. That is the purpose for this resolution, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on all sides from everyone who really wants this full discussion.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 742 provides for consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I rise to speak today on one of the most critical issues that faces our democracy, the freedom of the press and the sacred historic protection afforded to journalists allowing them not to reveal their sources. Understanding this, in 1799, one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said, ``Our citizens may be deceived for a while, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.'' Madam Speaker, with the birth of this new Nation came a government that was designed to be open and transparent to its people and held accountable for its actions. America's Founding Fathers established and implemented a system of checks and balances to ensure that one branch of government could not unilaterally impose its will on the others, aggressively overstep its authority, or greedily infringe upon the rights of its citizens. Beyond the checks and balances of government is an often overlooked, but equally important, element of our system: the freedom of the press. Embodied in the first amendment, this right grants active citizens and vocal journalists the power to expose corruption and misbehavior committed by those elected and appointed to office. They serve as protectors of our democracy and work to make up for our system's failings where they exist. Ensuring the free flow of information and providing protection for whistleblowers is vital to a free society. The Watergate scandal epitomized the value of the free press and, with it, the need to protect the relationship between journalists and their confidential sources. For a moment, I would like my colleagues to consider a reality in which journalists could routinely be forced to reveal the names of their informants, and where sources could undoubtedly become reluctant to share important information that is unknown to the public. Think of the scandals that journalists have revealed just in the last few years: The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine prisons across Eastern Europe; Jack Abramoff's trading expensive troops for political favor from lawmakers; our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan to dilapidated, unsafe, unsanitary facilities at Walter Reed Medical Center. Make no mistake, confidential sources made these reports possible. And I would be remiss if I did not ask my colleagues, would we rather be unaware of these incidents because shield laws don't exist and our reporters are too afraid of prosecution when doing their jobs? The past 6 years have produced one disturbing reminder after another that the legitimacy of our government and the integrity of our democracy are dependent on the ability of journalists to protect their sources. From uncovering the horrifying incidents of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib to revealing the administration's covert domestic spying program, the press managed to expose illegal actions by the executive branch when Congress refused to do so. The public has long valued this relationship as critical to the functioning of an open and free media. Unfortunately, the court record has been more mixed. In December of 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the journalist- source relationship is not protected under the Constitution. That ruling has allowed journalists to be forced to testify before grand juries about their sources. In response, individual States across the country enacted their own journalist shield laws to guarantee that a member of the press can continue to maintain their anonymous sources without fear of prosecution. In fact, 49 States and the District of Columbia all provide some form of shield law. But there is still no Federal statute providing uniformity. Now, recent Federal court cases are, again, challenging the critically important relationship between journalists and their sources, arguing that State interests supersede those of a free press. And according to The Washington Post, in recent years, more than 40 reporters have been questioned about their sources, notes and stories in civil and criminal cases. The Free Flow of Information Act before us today would, for the first time on the Federal level, explicitly protect journalists and their sources from the kind of vengeful legal actions that threaten to keep all those necessary whistles unblown. Unless Congress passes a comprehensive shield law that will guarantee the rights of journalists to speak with anonymous sources and ensure their confidentiality, the freedom of the press will be undermined along with the public good it has the power to defend. Any such bill must, of course, take into account the legitimate needs of our government, and this bill does that. Madam Speaker, should we in any way compromise the freedom of the press, we will deny our citizens their right to be informed about their government and retreat from the true nature of the political system that made our government unique. Our forefathers saw fit to enshrine this belief in the very first sentences of our Bill of Rights, and this Congress must continue to guarantee those rights. And today, Madam Speaker, as we debate extending these protections to the press, we must pause to remind the press of their obligation to the public. I regret to say that, for much of the recent past, some of the press, which was intended to be the watchdog of our government, quickly transformed into nothing more than a mouthpiece, exemplified in its coverage and lack of questions on the Iraq war. Madam Speaker, we saw time and time again the tough questions expected by the American people before and after the invasion in Iraq replaced with nothing more than patriotic propaganda and White House talking points. Embedded journalists were fed information and painted rosy scenarios of our invasion and occupation. Those who were skeptical and challenged this spoon-fed information were discredited and sometimes even fired for so much as questioning the actions of the war and this government. Thomas Jefferson said, again, and I quote, ``The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood.'' With all the wonderful protections of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the press must not only be vigilant, but it must be courageous. And we all remember that it is the prime directive of the press to inform the people. It is their duty to ask the tough questions when the American people are unable to do so. It is their responsibility to shine light on government actions, secret or mundane, and to hold it accountable. And let me finish by asking this simple question. Will the press pay as much attention to Blackwater as they did to Whitewater? I certainly hope so. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a momentous day for the House. We have before us today a resolution that has been approved by both sides of the aisle, worked on with great consideration as concerns the Constitution. We are very happy to present it today. We think its importance is certainly easily explained and necessary. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 742 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 935, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration except for clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money sent to us by the American people. And I am proud to say that we here in the House of Representatives have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all of our appropriations bills on time. We, in the new majority, have been absolute in our promise to construct and pass spending bills with broad bipartisan support, and I am proud to say that we have delivered on those promises. Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that passed the House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes. In a spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritize veterans, health care, education and energy independence. Mr. Speaker, H. Res 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, as I said before, for continuing appropriations for the year 2008. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say simply for the record that there are no earmarks in this bill and that everybody knows it. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 677 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no requests for time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 677.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 17, 2007 and missed Rollcall votes 867, 868, and 869. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each of the three measures.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 18, 2007 and missed rollcall votes 870, 871, and 872. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each of the three measures.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of my district's true treasures: The Geva Theater. For the past 35 years, the Geva Theater has been providing world-class theatrical performances to the Rochester area, as well as arts-related workshops and educational programs. From its humble beginnings of lunch-time performances in the Rochester Business Institute building, to its current two-stage home in the renovated Naval Armory, the Geva Theater has maintained a stellar reputation for creative and artistic excellence. The Geva Theater was established in 1972 by William Sheldon and Cynthia Mason Sheldon. The theater was housed in the Rochester Business Institute. Their first performances were a series of lunch-time plays in the fall of 1973. In 1982, Geva found a permanent home when the theater purchased and renovated Rochester's historic Naval Armory. Today, the Geva Theater Center is the home to the Elaine P. Wilson Mainstage, which produces seven shows each season and holds 552 patrons, and the Ron and Donna Fielding Nextstage, which houses a two- show season as well as Geva's other educational and interactive programs. Theaters like Geva are increasingly important in light of studies that show the positive economic impact of arts in the community. ``Arts and Economic Prosperity III'', a study recently released by Americans for the Arts, found that the nonprofit arts and culture industry in the U.S. generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year. The arts industry creates quality jobs, generates billions in household income, and in local, state and Federal tax revenues. Furthermore, studies like Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development have proved that arts education increases students' cognitive development, motivates and inspires discipline, enhances confidence and inventiveness, and hones communication and problem-solving skills. There is no greater example of the benefits of arts organizations for local communities than the Geva Theater, which draws over 174,000 patrons annually--more than 16,000 of whom are students. The Big Theater for Little People program allows thousands of students to experience original live professional theater. For each of these performances, Geva also provides workshops for teachers and accompanying study guides to enhance the learning experience. Artists also engage in question and answer sessions with students and are available to travel to schools to continue the dialogue. This type of interactive program has helped provide Rochester-area students with unique and well-rounded arts education experience. Through its wide variety of educational, outreach and literary programs, including Big Theater for Little People, the Geva Theater truly accomplishes its goals of enriching and deepening the theater- going experience for its audience; providing access and affordable theater to the Rochester community; developing new plays and playwrights; and nurturing the audiences and artists of the next generation. And by recruiting talented actors, directors, designers, and writers at the forefront of American performing arts from all across the country, Geva ensures that it provides its audience with the highest quality performance. However, given all of the contributions that the Geva Theater has given the Rochester community, perhaps nothing is more impressive than the atmosphere and energy that characterize each show that graces their historic building. From meeting friends at the Geva Cafe, to the personable confines of the theaters themselves, it is an experience that has thrilled a generation. As Geva moves in to their next 35 years, it warms my heart to know that more generations will be privileged to enjoy the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to reintroduce the Emergency Contraception Education Act. By improving education among the public and health professionals about emergency contraception (EC), my bill will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, and prevent abortions. Each year in the U.S., 3 million women face an unintended pregnancy, MORE than any industrialized nation. One in four of these end in abortion. Widespread and correct use of emergency contraception could prevent a significant number of unintended pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions in this country. Emergency contraception is simply a concentrated form of the daily birth control pills taken by millions of women in the U.S. It does not cause abortion, but instead stops the release of an egg from the ovary. EC is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy--it has low toxicity and no potential for overdose or addiction; and because there are no important drug interactions, there is no need for medical screening, allowing for self-identification of the need. Furthermore, EC will not harm an established pregnancy. If taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, EC can reduce the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. But because of the narrow window of effectiveness, timely access to EC is critical. In light of its safety and efficacy, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have supported more widespread availability of EC. The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B for adults. Yet, many patients and health care providers remain uninformed about this important contraception option. Only 1 in 3 women of reproductive age in the U.S. are aware of EC. In 2003, the Kaiser Foundation conducted a survey to examine teens' and adults' knowledge and opinions of EC in California. What they found was very disconcerting--nearly 40 percent did not know that EC was available in the U.S., and half of adult women who had heard of EC, mistakenly thought that it was the ``abortion pill,'' also known as RU- 486. Only 7 percent of adults who have heard of EC learned about it from their health care professional. Even women who had a gynecologic exam in the last year were no more likely to have learned about EC from their doctor. Unfortunately, lack of knowledge and the failure to provide patients with information on EC is a familiar trend throughout this country. Only one in four ob/gyns in the U.S. routinely discuss emergency contraception with their patients. Less than 18 percent of hospitals provide emergency contraception at a woman's request without restrictions. And, tragically nearly 50 percent of hospitals do not provide EC to a woman who has been sexually assaulted, even though it is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are raped each year. Healthy People 2010, published by the Office of the Surgeon General, establishes a 10-year national public health goal of increasing the proportion of health care providers who provide emergency contraception to their patients. My bill will move us much closer toward achieving this goal. The Emergency Contraception Education Act will initiate a large-scale education campaign to better inform women and health care providers about emergency contraception. Specifically, this bill will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and disseminate information on EC to health care providers, including recommendations on the use of EC in appropriate cases, and how to obtain copies of information developed by HHS for distribution to patients. The Secretary will also be required to develop and disseminate information on EC to the American public. EC could help women prevent unintended pregnancies and therefore reduce the need for abortions in the United States. However, barriers to information and access hinder this preventative contraceptive method from reaching its full potential. We can and we must do more to protect women's reproductive health by increasing knowledge of emergency contraception and expanding access to this critical preventative solution. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to cosponsor my bill today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. This bill seeks to address a growing problem among college students in the United States: devastating credit card debt. Nellie Mae's Student Credit Card Usage Analysis in 2005 found that the outstanding balance for the average college student was $2,169. Final year students carried an average balance of $2,864 while freshmen carry an average balance of$1,585. Additionally, as students progress through school, credit card usage swells. Ninety-one percent of final year students have a credit card compared to 42% of freshmen. The study also found that the average American college student is graduating with more than 4 credit cards to their name. College freshmen are typically offered eight credit cards during their first semester. Semester after semester, students open their mail boxes to find envelopes notifying them that they are pre-approved for credit cards with a $500 limit and no annual fee. When they check their e-mail, there are more credit card offers. When they answer the phone in their dorm room, there are even more offers. Credit card companies pay college students generously to stand outside dining halls, dorms, and academic buildings and encourage their peers to apply for credit cards. With each completed application, the student applicant receives free gifts--from t-shirts to indoor basketball hoops--and the credit card company receives another interest-paying customer. I have heard horror stories from my district about college students overwhelmed by credit card debt. One third-year college student had amassed a whopping $14,000 of debt. The question that cries out for an answer is: why are we making it so easy for our young people to amass such outrageous amounts of debt? With interest rates climbing, fees increasing, and the number of credit card holders going up every day, credit card companies should not be allowed to expand their unfair, predatory business practices by exploiting our Nation's future. College students are often inexperienced consumers who can get sucked into unfair credit card deals or simply get in over their heads with the numerous underlying and unknown fees. Many simply sign up for a credit card without any knowledge of the interest rate, fees, and penalties that come along with their card. We must address these unfair lending practices and fees to help American college students avoid enormous financial burdens from which, as adults, they may never recover. College graduation should be a time of excitement and new beginnings; a time when students can watch the skills they have learned in college manifest into successful careers and happy lives. But instead of seeing endless possibilities, too many students are burdened with endless debt. Studies now show that the likelihood of homeownership decreases as student debt increases. It is heartbreaking to me to think that recent graduates could jeopardize their future because we have allowed creditors to lend them sums of money they have no hope of paying back. That is why I, along with Congressman Duncan, my friend from Tennessee, have reintroduced the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. The bill will take important steps toward reducing credit card debts to college students by requiring credit card companies to determine whether a student applicant has the financial means to pay off a credit card balance before they are approved. It would restrict the credit limit to minimum balances if the student has no independent income, and require parental approval for credit limit increases in the event that a parent cosigns the account. It is time for credit card companies to be responsible lenders. For the sake of our college students and their futures, it is critical that we pass legislation that prevents credit card companies from plunging young men and women into debt. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this critical issue facing college students nation-wide, and I urge the House to consider and pass this bill quickly.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, despite our great respect and affection for those who brought their amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday, it is well known in this House and in the country that the Democrat majority intends to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible and as quick as it is practicable to do so. To reinstitute the Iraq Study Committee, to refinance it, put it back together, wait for a report would take far longer than we frankly are willing to give. But this bill before us today, the underlying bill before us, is humane. And it says, for goodness sake, don't redeploy troops over and over and over again unless they have had at least as much time at home to rest as they have had in combat. This is a different kind of combat, Mr. Speaker. Soldiers before have always been given recreation and rest after intense combat. Not this time. The soldiers in Iraq and all the military people of Iraq face almost instantaneous death every moment of the day and night without any respite at all. We are seeing the results of that brought home with the posttraumatic stress syndrome which is rising so rapidly. In addition to that, we are demanding at last, because we didn't have the opportunity before by not being in the majority, that these troops be equipped properly. The New York Times said on a front page story recently that 80 percent, Mr. Speaker, of the marines that died in Iraq would have lived, those with upper body wounds would have lived with the proper equipment. How can we live with that? We know now that instead of sending useless Humvees that were of no use at all to them against the IEDs, if we had always sent MRAPs, a technology we have known for 30 years, heaven knows how many of the nearly 4,000 who died would have been saved and how many of the more than 30,000 who have been wounded would have been spared that. That weighs heavily on the conscience of those of us in the House of Representatives, and it angers the people that we represent. We've talked to the parents of those who have been sent back two, three, four times. I have talked to one father who told me as his son was being deployed for the fourth time; if he gets killed, I will kill somebody. The anguish of these parents is palpable; and, as I stated before in my earlier statement, we don't fight this war. The 1 percent of the military people and their families are fighting this war. We've been asked for no sacrifice of any kind. How glib it is for us to stand on this floor and say, leave it to the generals and look how well they're doing. The number of generals who have resigned their commission so that they could speak out against this carnage and this despicable war that was unplanned and planned by people who have left the scene cannot go on any longer. And I will tell you that we have to go and look families in the face, and there are a number of times that I've gone to services, and my position on the war is well-known, and I've wondered if the families, how they would accept my presence. I have never been to a single one where they didn't say to me, bring them home, bring them home. For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, if it's not just for that alone, those of us here have that obligation to bring them home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no other speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.