Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. 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, H. Res. 157 provides for comprehensive consideration of H. Con. Res. 63. It provides all of the Members of this House with 3 full days of debate on this important matter. It is a momentous day for us, Mr. Speaker. This is the debate that many of us have yearned for for at least 4 years, and our constituents have long suffered the lack of this debate. Every Member who wishes to speak on the resolution will have the opportunity to do so. The rule also, in addition to the time in the rule, allows the majority leader at any time, after consultation with the minority leader, to extend the debate when necessary. On January 10, President Bush announced an escalation of the Iraq war that will put as many as 50,000 more of our men and women in harm's way. Why 50,000 and not 20,000? Because the number of support groups who have to be there to support the troops adds up to nearly 50,000. This body owes them an explanation for why at this moment in history the sacrifice is justified. Democrats and Republicans alike are determined to defend our Nation from harm and are wholly committed to supporting and protecting the members of our Armed Forces. But numerous military officials of the highest ranks, like General Colin Powell, General John Abizaid, and many, many others, have expressed a strong belief that increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq will not improve the situation in the country. Two-thirds of the American people believe that further escalating the war is the wrong path to follow. This morning, 67 percent of them polled said we should get out at once. Even respected Members in the House and the Senate have been quick to state publicly that they oppose any troop escalation. Republican Representative Steve LaTourette best explained this broad bipartisan opposition to the President's plan. Like many Americans, he recently said, I desperately want America to succeed in Iraq and I would welcome a fresh approach, but this is not a fresh approach. This is more of the same. For 4 years, through the deaths of 3,126 American service people and nearly 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 25 to 30,000 grievously wounded, through the forced dislocation of millions of Iraqi families, through numerous troop escalations, and $379 billion appropriated by this Congress, through unbearable strain stretching our National Guard and Army Reserve, their members, and their families to the breaking point, more of the same has never worked. As of last June, only 25 percent of the Iraqis had clean water to drink. The oil production has fallen by nearly half since the war began. The unemployment rate in Iraq as of December ranged between 25 and 40 percent. Sixty-seven more innocent civilians were killed just yesterday in yet another bombing. Eighty-four of our troops were killed last month. Forty-one have been killed in the last 2 weeks alone. My district has suffered six casualties since 2005, and 140 men and women from my State of New York have been killed so far in Iraq. Every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy currently employed by this administration is failing in Iraq. The only argument being used to support an escalation of the war would be one of trust. If we just give the President one more chance, we are told, things will be different. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people and the military leaders who know what war really is and a broad majority of this Congress are tired of giving this administration one more chance and have no reason to give it our trust. The Pentagon Inspector General recently reported that statements made by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, during the runup to war, were ``inconsistent with the consensus in the intelligence community and drew conclusions that were not fully supported by available intelligence.'' Mr. Feith joins the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, and many others who made statements which simply misled us into war. So why should we trust the administration's assessments of Iraq? Why should we trust the President to give the new troops that he wants to send the protection that they need to come back home unharmed? Despite all the President's rhetoric in support of our Armed Forces, a second Pentagon report released at the end of January bluntly states that for years in Iraq and Afghanistan ``servicemembers experienced a shortage of force protection equipment and were not always equipped to effectively complete their mission.'' In fact, the report speaks of soldiers having to trade off Kevlar vests because there were not enough for each of them. This is what is happening today, Mr. Speaker. We were aware when we first went into the war that we were ill prepared, but 4 years later it is no better. The Washington Post noted just yesterday that many Humvees still do not have the armor needed to protect them from the bombs that are killing and injuring 70 percent of our troops abroad. While our troops have gone unprotected, corruption exploitation and incompetence has squandered billions of dollars and allowed vital reconstruction projects to be handed to well-connected companies that failed to fulfill their duties. Unbid contracts proliferate. Despite it all, for years the administration treated accountability as if it were a dirty word. And why should we expect that without a radical change, of course, that things will suddenly improve? Mr. Speaker, changing a broken course in Iraq is not going to demoralize our troops or abandon them. Frankly, they must wonder what it is we have been doing here all along. To the contrary, it is the only way to support the troops. Changing a broken course will not provide our enemies with encouragement either. If our strategy is not working, then why would we help our enemies by resolutely adhering to the failing plan? Now, that is a question that needs to be asked again. If our strategy is not working, why would we help our enemy by resolutely adhering to the failing plan? Democrats are insisting on a new level of accountability in Congress, calling 52 hearings since January 4. But we also need a new course in Iraq. We need to oppose this escalation and stubborn adherence to a failing strategy. We need to shift our focus and footprint in the region and to accept what so many observers have known for years: The conflict in Iraq will only be solved politically, not militarily. As strongly as I feel on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many of my colleagues in the House have a different perspective. What is needed is a serious discussion conducted by serious people. The first step of such a discussion is a focused, clear and full debate on the question of the escalation itself. We need an unambiguous up-or- down vote on the escalation. We are keeping this rule and this bill so straightforward in order to best achieve that result. I want to emphasize that this is the first step, and Congress will have many opportunities during discussions of the supplemental funding request, for example, to debate the numerous dimensions of this war and to present new ways forward. But we must first know where we stand. Our goal this week is to establish whether Congress disagrees or agrees with the President's current approach to Iraq. If the answer is no, then we will have the basis for forcing the President to work in a bipartisan way with us to change that approach. The obvious truth is that a failure to achieve such a change will seal the fate of this war as one of the greatest blunders in America's history. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Is my colleague ready to close?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is right.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, I have one remaining speaker.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is critically important in preventing our current stock of antibiotics from becoming obsolete. As a mother, grandmother, and microbiologist, I cannot stress the urgency of this problem enough. Seven classes of antibiotics that are considered medically important for humans are currently approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture. Among them are penicillin, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins, aminoglycosides, and sulfonamides. These classes of antibiotics are among the most critically important in our arsenal of defense against potentially fatal diseases. Penincillins, for example, are used to treat infections ranging from strep throat to meningitis. Macrolides and Sulfonamides are used to prevent secondary infections in patients with AIDS and to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. Tetracyclines are used to treat people potentially exposed to anthrax. Despite their importance in human medicine, these drugs are added to animal feed as growth promotants and for routine disease prevention. This kind of habitual, nontherapuetic use of antibiotics has been conclusively linked to a growing number of incidents of antimicrobial- resistant infections in humans, and may be contaminating ground water with resistant bacteria in rural areas. The legislation I am introducing today, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, would phase out the use of the seven classes of medically significant antibiotics that are currently approved for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture. Make no mistake, this bill would in no way infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal. It simply proscribes their nontherapuetic use. Although the FDA could withdraw its approval for these antibiotics, its record of reviewing currently approved drugs under existing procedures indicate that it would take nearly a century to get these medically important antibiotics out of the feed given to food producing animals. In October 2000, for example, the FDA began consideration of a proposal to withdraw its approval for the therapeutic use of fluoroquinolones in poultry. The review is still ongoing, and under its regulations, the FDA must review each class of antibiotics separately. Unfortunately, upcoming actions by the FDA could make us less, not more safe. As antimicrobial resistance is on the rise, the FDA is considering an application to permit the use of a fourth-generation cephalosporin, cefquinome, in animal agriculture. Fourth-generation cephalosporins are used to treat food borne illnesses, including E. Coli and Salmonella. In Europe, where cefquinome has been approved for use in animal agriculture, scientists have noticed an increase in resistant bacteria. Already, the emerging strains of resistant bacteria are reaching a crisis level here in the United States. That the FDA is currently considering approval of a drug that will only make humans more vulnerable to resistant bacteria underscores the need for this legislation. Madam Speaker, when we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without worrying that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medial treatments. Unless we act now, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria. It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and do something to address the spread of resistant bacteria. We cannot afford for our medicines to become obsolete. I urge my colleagues to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act to protect the integrity of our antibiotics and the health of American families.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Athletics Accountability Act. As opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and athletics have been made increasingly available, women's participation has grown exponentially. Nearly 2.6 million high school girls now participate in organized sports, as opposed to 294,015 in 1971 before Title IX was enacted. Athletic participation has brought with it confidence and camaraderie among young women, giving them memories and friends that will last a lifetime. Despite our progress, persistent attacks against equality for women's sports require that we continue to protect the rights our nation's young women deserve. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for high schools and parents to ensure fairness in their athletics programs. The High School Athletics Accountability Act requires that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. The data will help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Ultimately better information will encourage greater participation of all students in athletics. Without information about how athletic opportunities and benefits are being allocated at the high school level, female students may be deprived of their chance to play sports. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education. A survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Associations indicates that female students receive 1.25 million fewer opportunities to play high school sports than do male students, which translate into many lost opportunities for athletic scholarships. Other studies show that student athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. Women athletes also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self- esteem than female non-athletes--critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives. We must give our schools the tools they need to identify inequities in their programs so that current and future generations of women can enjoy the benefits of sports. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help girls move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today, I am again proud to introduce the Prevention First Act. By emphasizing prevention first, my bill will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the spread of STDs, and give women the tools they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves. The Prevention First Act will help to achieve these goals by providing comprehensive access to all forms of contraception and sex education. Throughout the years, conservative leaders have sought to limit women's rights and freedoms by imposing stricter penalties on doctors who help women faced with an unintended pregnancy. At the same time, these leaders have done very little to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are prevented in the first place. If they are opposed to abortion, if they support women's health, and if they believe that the right to choose when to start a family should apply to all women, no matter their economic or social situation, then they should be in favor of this bill. It has been more than 40 years since the Supreme Court said women had the right to access contraception. This decision was revolutionary, for the first time allowing women to choose when to become pregnant and how many children to have. Access to contraception greatly enhanced women's equality in American Society. It also helps to ameliorate economic disparities among women. The social and economic realities surrounding contraception could not be starker. Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. About 1 in 5 women of reproductive age were uninsured in 2003, and that proportion has increased by 10% since 2001. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X, the national family planning program. These programs provide high-quality family planning services and other preventive health care, such as pap smears, to underinsured or uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health care and alternative options for birth control. What's more, each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated one million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Despite the obvious benefits they bring, these programs are currently struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services without corresponding increases in funding. The Prevention First Act authorizes funding for Title X clinics and strengthens states' coverage of Medicaid family planning services. Contraception is, of course, more than a means of fighting economic inequalities. It also provides a way to save scarce public health dollars. For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3.80 is saved in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care. And what's more, improved access to emergency contraception (EC) has been proven to significantly reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancy and, as a result, abortion. EC prevents pregnancy after unprotected sex or a contraceptive failure. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, EC is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are reported to be raped each year. Unfortunately, even with the recent FDA decision to allow EC to be sold over-the-counter to women 18 years of age and over, many women do not know about EC and many still face insurmountable barriers in accessing this important product. The Prevention First Act mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services implement an education campaign about EC and requires that hospitals receiving federal funds provide victims of sexual assault with information and access to EC. Despite the fact that contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion, far too many insurance policies do not cover them. While most employment-related insurance policies in the United States cover prescription drugs in general, many do not include equitable coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Although 21 states now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they cover other prescription drugs, 29 states still have no corresponding law on the books. Out of pocket expenses for contraception can be costly. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, much of which is due to reproductive health-related supplies and services. The Prevention First Act requires that private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services. Madam Speaker, it is critical in any discussion of reproductive rights to devote time to teenagers, who face the consequences of so many of these issues more acutely than other age groups. Teens face additional barriers regarding access to services and information. Sixty percent of teens have sex before graduating high school. Those who receive comprehensive sexuality education that includes discussion of contraception as well as abstinence are more likely than those who receive abstinence-only messages to delay sex, to have fewer partners, and to use contraceptives when they do become sexually active. Efforts by conservatives to restrict access to family planning services and promote abstinence-only education programs--which are prohibited from discussing the benefits of contraception--actually jeopardize adolescent health and run counter to the views of many mainstream medical groups. Nearly 50 percent of new cases of STDs occur among people ages 15 to 24, even though this age bracket makes up just a quarter of the sexually active population. Clearly, teens have the most to lose when faced with an unintended pregnancy or an STD infection. Moreover, 1 in 3 girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school. Children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. Improving access to contraceptive services and information does not cause non-sexually active teens to start having sex. Instead, teens need information to help them both postpone sexual activity and to protect themselves if they do become sexually active. A November 2006 study of declining pregnancy rates among teens concluded that the reduction in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 is primarily the result of increased use of contraceptives. The Prevention First Act provides funding to public and private entities to establish or expand their teenage pregnancy prevention programs. This bill also provides for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs that teach young people about abstinence, health, and contraceptives. Moreover, this bill requires federally funded programs that provide information on the use of contraceptives to ensure that the information is medically accurate and includes health benefits and failure rates. Madam Speaker, virtually everyone can agree that reducing unintended pregnancies, lowering STD infection rates, and promoting the health of all women and their children, regardless of their economic or social situation, are important public health goals. It should come as no surprise that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included family planning in their published list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.'' My bill, the Prevention First Act, will improve access to family planning services for women in need throughout America, and will go a long way toward fulfilling the promise of this important public health achievement. Madam Speaker, I urge every Member to stand with the women of our country and to support this important bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to humbly honor the life of one of America's most courageous pioneers in the civil rights movement--Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was born 189 years ago this month, and although it has been over a century since he has walked this earth, his imprint on American history remains. For the past 21 years, I have had the privilege of representing Rochester, New York in Congress; and the city's historic commitment to the advancement of progressive causes has always served as an inspiration to me. When I am standing on the House floor, exhausted by another debate to protect our civil liberties, my spirit is reinvigorated when I think of Frederick Douglass' Rochester newspaper, the North Star, and the phrase printed on its masthead: ``Right is of no sex--Truth is of no color--God is the Father of us all, and we are all Brethren.'' Beyond being a source of inspiration, Frederick Douglass is the subject of adoration as one of America's bravest heroes. After he escaped slavery in 1838, he devoted the remainder of his life to freeing other slaves and to ending the practice of slavery itself. Upon settling in Rochester, he used the city's location near the Canadian border to lead local Underground Railroad activities, giving sanctuary to freedom seekers as they fled from slavery, oppression, and injustice. In addition to his work in the abolitionist movement, Douglass fought to ensure that freed slaves were treated fairly. In 1863, Douglass met with President Lincoln to discuss the treatment of black soldiers in the civil war. He later met with President Andrew Johnson to discuss black suffrage. His tireless efforts in support of freedom and equality laid the ground work for future civil rights movements. Intolerant of any injustice, Douglass worked closely with another one of Rochester's leading progressive advocates, Susan B. Anthony, to fight for women's suffrage. In fact, he used his North Star newspaper not only to denounce slavery, but also to advocate for women's rights. Douglass found a home in Rochester among the progressive activists of the mid-1800 who fought for social reforms, the peace movement, and universal equality. It is certainly no surprise that Frederick Douglass felt a special connection to the City of Rochester, and chose to be buried here. Madam Speaker, Frederick Douglass' persistence, perseverance, and pertinacity serve as a timeless source of inspiration for Americans struggling for freedom against today's injustices. I urge my colleagues to join with me in celebrating and honoring Frederick Douglass' birth- month. America and the City of Rochester are fortunate to have had such an outstanding leader among us. We must never forget his legacy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

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 want to make certain that everybody understands that the money we are operating under is the money that the Republicans voted last year to spend. We are under their spending levels, not ours, so the complaints ring hollow. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike all after the resolved clause and insert: ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment in section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative Walden of Oregon or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. ``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows: Page 39, after line 24, insert the following: ``Sec. 20327. Of the uncosted balances available from funds appropriated under Section 130 of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199) under the heading `Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Science', as amended by Section 315 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103), for the Iowa Environmental and Education project in Coralville, Iowa, $44,569,000 is rescinded.''. Page 87, line 6, strike ``$25,423,250,000'' and insert ``$25,467,819,000''. At the end of chapter 5 of title II of the division B being added by section 2, add the following new section: ``Sec. 20522. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available by this division, $400,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of making payments for fiscal year 2007 under sections 102 and 103 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note). The Secretary of the Treasury shall use such funds to make such payments in lieu of using funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, as otherwise authorized by sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of such Act. ``(b) There is hereby rescinded an amount equal to .00086 percent of the budget authority provided (or obligation limit imposed) for fiscal year 2007 for any discretionary account pursuant to this division.''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to Mr. Obey of Wisconsin.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 116 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007. It may seem strange that we are doing that at this late date. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money given to it by the American people, but the last Congress failed to live up to this duty. Of the 11 appropriations bills it was supposed to pass in 2006, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, left for the incoming Democratic Congress to deal with. My fellow Democrats and I could have approached this responsibility in the way it was approached last year, but we promised to run the House differently, to run it responsibly, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We had a mess to clean up, Mr. Speaker. The budget failures of the past Republican Congress have vastly increased our national debt, but they did more than that. They left agencies, States and localities in limbo for months concerning their future funding. What is more, we have seen an explosion in earmarks over the last 12 years in Washington, earmarks that had greased the wheels of an out-of-control congressional machinery. The number of earmarks approved by the House had, according to estimates by even the most conservative of groups, doubled and tripled in recent Congresses, and for every shameful, unjustifiable bridge to nowhere that was exposed and shouted down by the public, many more questionable earmarks slipped through undetected, a few lines here or there in a large bill, misspending the people's money and taking advantage of their trust. The Democrats have pledged to fundamentally reform the way earmarks are passed into law by this body, to bring transparency to a process that until recently had been deliberately shrouded in darkness. The Rules reform package that we enacted on the first day of this Congress will shed new and much-needed light on the earmarking process. It will require the full disclosure of all earmarks proposed by Members of the House. If a project is worth funding, then the Representative requesting it should have no qualms with standing up publicly on its behalf. But the earmarks in the budget bills left undone by Republicans last Congress did not have any such standards applied to them, and so Democrats have decided to rid this CR of all earmarks. It was a difficult decision and one which we all had to justify to our constituents back home. But in the end, it was a necessary step to bring forth a new day in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, and cleaning up the mess we inherited required difficult choices between bad alternatives. But I am very pleased that despite it all the legislation does contain increases in funding for critical programs affecting the lives of millions of people at home and around the world. Spending on veterans health care is increased by $3.6 billion above the 2006 spending level. Spending on Pell Grants for the first time in 5 years is increased by $615.4 million. The NIH is going to receive an additional $619.6 million. Other increases are going to support public housing, crime and law enforcement, and domestic transportation needs. The bill even has a global focus, granting an additional $1.3 million to expand the efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis internationally. Mr. Speaker, the minority, I predict, will claim that the closed rule under which we are debating this bill is a violation of the spirit of the House and a rejection of the promises Democrats made last year to open up the legislative process. Let me be very clear, extremely clear about the past record of the House. Since 1997, the House has voted on 75 continuing resolutions, and all of them, 100 percent, were considered under a closed rule process with no amendments allowed. What is more, a third of those continuing resolutions contained substantive policy changes. In addition to that extensive precedent, the House has already fully debated and considered eight of the appropriations measures contained here. To do so again would take us all year, and we do not have that luxury, not with the many challenges that confront our Nation at this moment in history. Under the circumstances left for us by the former majority, we have done the best we could. We have produced a bill that will keep the government functioning and a bill that, despite its flaws, is a breath of fresh air compared with how appropriations legislation used to be handled in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, the American people are ready for a new direction. They have proved that in this country, and that is why they put a new kind of Congress in power. This Congress is going to be defined not just by the way it does business, but by the kind of business it conducts. This Congress is not going to pass the buck, leaving unfinished business for others to handle and leaving problems for others to fix. Democrats are making the tough choices the American people expect us to make and that they elected us to make. At the end of the day, that is what real leadership is all about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 71, I arrived at the door when the vote was called. I was detained at the office. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''