Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the reports.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. And my colleague from California?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, this bill represents a true victory for the American people and provides some hope for the integrity of this body, which has been so badly tarnished by the actions of this majority that can one day be restored. As a child, my parents taught me that integrity means doing what is right when no one is looking. Well, 4 months ago when they thought no one was looking, the Republican majority of this House passed a rules package that gutted the House ethics standards and effectively neutered the House ethics committee, a committee that genuinely worked well and that had not had a complaint for years. The changes were made in an obvious attempt to protect one man from further prosecution or investigation by the ethics committee. Four months later, after the world has been awakened to the unethical brand of sweep-it-under-the-rug politics, the Speaker has finally relented to public pressure and agreed to reinstate the ethics rules that have governed the House for years, rules that should have been governing the House during the 109th Congress from the very start. You know, it is easy to do the right thing when the whole world is watching, and today the whole world is watching. And it appears that the majority, with their back against the wall, may finally do the right thing. It appears as though they will heed the call of the minority and the call of America to reinstate the ethics committee. It appears they may heed the overwhelming call to return to the rules of the 108th Congress. And not just a section from part A, or a smidgeon of part B; but all of them. Even now, at this low point, there is concern that the rules changes the majority proposes today will not include measures to ensure that the staff of the ethics committee remain nonpartisan. That, Mr. Speaker, would be a tragedy. And it is crucial that they maintain a professional and nonpartisan staff if the ethics committee will retains any credibility moving forward. But even in defeat, it seems the majority has no shame. I will say that whatever the outcome today, they do not deserve a pat on the back for this apparent about-face. And as I said earlier, we should always remember, it is easier to make the right decision when the world is watching. But what defines our character is what we do when no one is watching. We saw clearly what this majority is all about. We have been witness to it for the past 4 months, and every day we discover new abuses of the rules by the Republican leadership and new abuses of the democratic process here in the House. Example: what happened in the report from the Judiciary Committee. All of us owe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) a debt of gratitude for his resoluteness and steadfastness on this issue and for having the courage to fight against this clear attempt by the majority to subvert the democratic process and destroy the principles of ethics and integrity in the House. Let us hope that America will not soon forget what the majority did and the Herculean effort it has required to convince them to reverse course. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the House.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman very much for his support. I appreciate that. And if it is all right with the chairman, I will inundate him with that information between now and then. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1998 Congress set a goal for 2005 to improve the energy efficiency in congressional buildings by 20 percent. And I know that the Architect of the Capitol has been working very hard to reach the goal. However, we have not. Yet the skyrocketing gasoline prices remind us that we must do more for conservation. I am disappointed that the underlying legislation gives 94 percent of its benefits to the oil and gas industry and only 6 percent to conservation and renewable efforts. My amendment, I think, is a good start at least on some conservation. It would simply require that any new escalator being installed in Federal buildings to be an intermittent escalator. These have been in use in Europe for 30 or 40 years; and I know that when I first saw one, I could hardly believe it. It does not begin until the passenger steps on a pad entering into the escalator and stops when the passengers are off. We would save about 40 percent of the fuel costs, the electricity costs, the energy costs. But in addition to that, what we would save simply on the wear and tear, the pure mechanics of the escalator, probably would be even higher than the energy savings. Mr. Chairman, the traditional escalators are used more than 90 billion times a year in the United States; and with more than 30,000 of them across the country, escalators move more people than airplanes. And since almost all of them are out of order a good percentage of the time, we know that it is important that we do something to conserve that kind of money and the investment we have made in the escalators. As I pointed out, the amount of energy consumed is estimated to be 260 million kilowatts an hour, which we would save a cost to the Nation, if all of them were intermittent, of $260 million a year. I want to quote an analyst at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The intermittent escalators, says Lawrence Livermore, are 40 to 50 percent more energy efficient than traditional escalators. This was borne out by a case study supplied to me from the German Embassy, which found 40 percent savings in Germany. Energy can be particularly saved when the escalator is used only during rush hours. Replacing all of them would save us an awful lot of money, but this bill does not replace them all. It simply requires that new escalators be of the intermittent variety. And I strongly hope that we will accept this amendment this evening as part of this energy bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 117, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are debating a rule, for a change, that provides Members of the House a chance to offer their ideas about how we can improve the country's energy policies. We had almost 90 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules and we were granted 30 of them. I think we can still do better than that, but it sure is better than last week's closed rule on the bankruptcy bill. In fact, this rule even makes an amendment in order that I offered. I think it is the first one I have gotten in about 9 years, and I do want to tell my colleagues that I am happy to have it, because it will save the government a lot of money. I urge my colleagues to closely follow the debate we are having on this bill today and tomorrow because, in its current form, I believe it has the wrong priorities. At a time when oil companies are enjoying record profits, the bill gives billions of dollars in new subsidies. It gives 94 percent of its benefits to the oil and gas industry, and only 6 percent to conservation and renewable energy efforts, which are the areas that really make the country energy independent. This brand of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare is so off the mark that even President Bush, a former energy executive himself, recently stated that oil companies have all the incentives they need to keep on drilling in the form of $50 a barrel crude. Americans already are shelling out their hard-earned cash for the most expensive gasoline in our history. We should not ask them to give out even more in the form of corporate giveaways for the oil companies. One of the things we will hear today and that we have been hearing for years now is that the way to reduce our use of foreign oil is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. We hear claims that in a few years, ANWR will be producing 10 billion barrels a day and all of our problems will be solved. Well, Mr. Speaker, the governor of Alaska says he does not know if there is any oil in there at all. Now, I know we have debated this issue before, but take another look at it, because recent press reports expose the ANWR drilling issue for the political Trojan horse that it is. The New York Times reported in February, and I will submit this for the Record, that the oil companies do not think there is much, or any, marketable oil in the Arctic Refuge. Back in the 1980s, they drilled a couple of test holes in ANWR, and they certainly were not very excited about what they found, because even though they have held the results close to their chests, two of the companies that drilled those holes have pulled out of going to ANWR. In fact, they are saying that that is of no use to them. Over the past several years, Chevron Texaco, British Petroleum, and ConocoPhilips have all withdrawn from the group that lobbies for drilling in ANWR. So if the major oil companies, the people who are the experts in the field, the folks we depend on to do the drilling, if they do not think there is oil there, then why are we doing it? Because it is a Trojan horse. They claim if they do not have the right to drill in ANWR, they will not have any right to drill where the oil really is, and that is off the coast of Florida, off the coast of California, and in the Gulf of Mexico, which is where they really want to go. So pay close attention here because if this passes, the next oil exploration may be in your backyard. The material previously referred to follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005] Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic (By Jeff Gerth) Washington, Feb. 20--George W. Bush first proposed drilling for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska in 2000, after oil industry experts helped his presidential campaign develop an energy plan. Five years later, he is pushing the proposal again, saying the nation urgently needs to increase domestic production. But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a triumph of politics over geology. Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs. While Democrats have repeatedly blocked the drilling plan, many legislators believe it has its best chance of passage this year, because of a Republican-led White House and Congress and tighter energy supplies. Though the oil industry is on the sidelines, the president still has plenty of allies. The Alaska Congressional delegation is eager for the revenue and jobs drilling could provide. Other legislators favor exploring the refuge because more promising prospects, like drilling off the coasts of Florida or California, are not politically palatable. And many Republicans hope to claim opening the refuge to exploration as a victory in the long- running conflict between development interests and environmentalists. The refuge is a symbol of that larger debate, said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a major supporter of drilling. Opponents agree. ``This is the No. 1 environmental battle of the decade,'' said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the administration wants to permit drilling? Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets. A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. ``If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them,'' said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. ``No oil company really cares about ANWR,'' the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced ``an-war.'' Wayne Kel1ey, who worked in Alaska as a petroleum engineer for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company, said the refuge's potential could ``only be determined by drilling.'' ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising,'' Mr. Kelley said. The project has long been on Mr. Bush's agenda. When he formulated a national energy policy during the 2000 campaign he turned to the oil industry for help. Heading the effort was Hunter Hunt, a top executive of the Hunt Oil Company, based in Dallas. The Bush energy advisers endorsed opening a small part-- less than 10 percent of the 19-million-acre refuge--to oil exploration, an idea first proposed more than two decades ago. The refuge, their report stated, ``could eventually produce more than the amount of oil the United States now imports from Iraq.'' The plan criticized President Bill Clinton's energy policies, both in the Middle East, where most of the world's oil lies, and in the United States. In 1995 Mr. Clinton vetoed legislation that authorized leasing in the Alaska refuge. An earlier opportunity to open it collapsed after oil spilled into Alaskan waters in 1989 from the Exxon Valdez. Subsequent efforts, including one in Mr. Bush's first term, also failed. Mr. Hunt, through an aide, declined an interview request. Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums because of political and environmental concerns. ``If you can't do ANWR,'' said Matthew R. Simmons, a Houston investment banker for the energy industry and a Bush adviser in 2000, ``you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas.'' Shortly after assuming office, Mr. Bush asked Vice President Dick Cheney to lead an examination of energy policy. A May 2001 report by a task force Mr. Cheney assembled echoed many of Mr. Bush's campaign promises, including opening up part of the refuge. The report called for further study of the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. The next year, Mr. Bush said ``our national security makes it urgent'' to explore the refuge. By then, the industry was moving in the opposite direction. In 2002 BP withdrew financial support from Arctic Power, a lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska, after an earlier withdrawal by Chevron Texaco. BP, long active in Alaska, later moved its team of executives to Houston from Alaska, a company executive said. ``We're leaving this to the American public to sort out,'' said Ronnie Chappell, a BP spokesman, of the refuge. About a year ago, ConocoPhillips also stopped its financial support for Arctic Power, said Kristi A. DesJarlais, a company spokeswoman. Ms. DesJarlais said her company had a ``conceptual interest'' in the refuge but ``a more immediate interest in opportunities elsewhere.'' Other companies have taken similar positions. George L. Kirkland, an executive vice president of Chevron Texaco, said a still-banned section in the Gulf of Mexico, where the company has already drilled, was of more immediate interest. ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, said in an television interview last December, ``I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not.'' For the Interior Department, however, the refuge is the best land-based opportunity to find new oil. Any lease revenues, estimated by the department to be $2.4 billion in 2007, would be split between the federal and state governments. Advocates say oil production could reach one million barrels per day. In a decade from now, when the site might be fully developed, that would be about 4 percent of American consumption, according to federal forecasts. David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.) But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr. Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of ``petroleum resources''--potential oil deposits--instead of ``petroleum reserves,'' which refers to oil that has been discovered. Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the study, said the federal geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge. There has not been much discussion about the refuge between the companies and the Bush administration, according to industry and government officials. ``I don't think I've talked to the oil industry over the last several years about the economic potential of ANWR,'' Mr. Bernhardt said. The relationship between the administration and the oil industry has been a flashpoint for critics of Mr. Bush. Democrats, upset that Mr. Cheney refused to disclose information about his task force meetings with industry executives, see a cozy alliance. Their concerns are heightened because of the former ties between the industry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the administration's stance on issues like climate change. The president once headed a small exploration company, and Mr. Cheney previously was chief executive of Halliburton. ``Big oil,'' Senator John Kerry said in last year's presidential campaign, now calls ``the White House their home.'' Some industry executives say their views are more aligned with those of Republicans on a broad range of issues including regulation, the environment and energy supply, and they were heartened by the initial pronouncements of the Bush administration. But some say they feel let down by Mr. Bush's inability to lift bans on oil exploration. ``When this administration came in, the president and the vice president recognized there was a problem of energy supply and demand,'' said Tom Fry, the executive director of the National Offshore Industries Association. But Mr. Cheney's task force, Mr. Fry said, talked only about offshore drilling as something to be studied. ``They never say they will lift the moratoria,'' he said.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was proud to introduce the Prevention First Act. While our conservative leaders continue to limit a women's right to choose, they are doing very little to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) are prevented. If they are opposed to abortion, they should be for preventing unintended pregnancies. 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. For most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity. Contraceptive use saves scarce public health dollars. For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3 is saved in Medicare expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care. 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 percent 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 to underinsured or uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health care and alternative options for birth control. Each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Yet these programs are 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 allows States to expand Medicaid family planning services. Improved access to emergency contraception (EC) can further reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in this country. 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, many women do not know about EC and many 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. Contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion. However far too many insurance policies exclude this vital coverage. While most employment-related insurance policies in the United States cover prescription drugs in general, the 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 do not have any laws. 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. Teens face additional barriers regarding access to services and information. Sixty percent of teens have sex before graduating high school. Efforts by conservatives to restrict access to family planning services and promote abstinence-only education programs that 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. Furthermore, 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 become sexually active. The Prevention First Act provides funding to public and private entities to establish or expand their teenage pregnancy prevention programs, and my 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. Reducing unintended pregnancy and infection with STDs are important public health goals. 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 all women in need and will go a long way in fulfilling the promise of this important public health achievement. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to cosponsor my bill today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the ever-growing problem of radio and television stations that seem to have forgotten that the American public owns the airwaves on which they broadcast. Those stations also appear to have lost sight of the public interest obligations they assumed when they were awarded those airwaves, which today are collectively worth hundreds of billions of dollars. To cite evidence of this lack of responsibility, a recent Poynter Institute study found that in the month leading up to Election Day 2004, local issues and races garnered just 8 percent of the local evening newscasts in 11 of the nation's largest TV markets. Stated another way, ninety-two percent of the news broadcasts studied contained no stories about races for the U.S. House, state senate or assembly, mayor, city council, law enforcement posts, judgeships, education offices, or regional or county offices. Our citizens and constituents deserve more from broadcasters than canned weather and news, and local reporting of fires and murders. They deserve the vital information about issues of national and local importance that will allow them to make decisions about how our democracy should operate. Therefore, today I am introducing with my colleague John J. Duncan, Jr., the Localism Reform in Broadcasting Act of 2005 to increase broadcasters' accountability to the public they serve. The bill will have slight impact on stations meeting their public interest obligations, but it will give citizens greater leverage dealing with stations that do not. It would reduce the license term for broadcasters from 8 years to 3, thereby requiring broadcasters to provide the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with information every 3 years why their license should be renewed. Broadcasters would be required regularly to post information about their local public affairs programming on their Internet site. The FCC would be required to review at least five percent of all license and renewal applications. During license renewal proceedings, the FCC will be able to review not only the performance of the station seeking approval, but also the performance of all stations owned by the licensee. Finally, the FCC would be required to complete its open proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to broadcasters in the digital era. I think we all would prefer that broadcasters honor their responsibilities without being forced to do so by Congress. However, owner consolidation is growing, more and more stations are being run by absentee landlords in corporate offices far away, and their record is going from bad to worse. It is now up to us to put local back into local broadcasting, by giving citizens more control over content in what is--again, I repeat--their airwaves. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make that happen, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because the bill does nothing to address the problem of identity theft or protect its victims.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. The rule we are debating, that we have made today is a closed rule which means that the Members of Congress who brought 35 amendments to the Committee on Rules will not have a chance to bring them up. This closed rule means that the elected representatives of the people will never have the opportunity to consider the amendments and decide for themselves whether or not they would make the bankruptcy bill a better piece of legislation. I personally think that amendments protecting our men and women returning from military service in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good idea, and I feel very strongly that the amendment protecting the victims of identity theft from bankruptcy is an important measure that should be debated on the House floor. After all, Americans are and should be very concerned about identity theft. AARP said it is one of the top five issues concerning seniors today. Just to give my colleagues an idea of how concerned our fellow Americans should be about this, Lexis-Nexis and GM MasterCard are both recovering from wide-scale security breaches which may have placed millions of Americans at risk for having their identity stolen. In fact, just 2 days ago, Lexis-Nexis identified more than 300,000 Americans that their personal information may have been stolen. In some cases, it will take those people 6 years to get back their identity. It is a very real problem for our country. But if my colleagues in the majority do not agree that protecting Americans from identity theft is an important issue, why will they not let the body debate it? If they want to, they can always vote against it. That is the way things are supposed to happen here in a democracy. Instead, they have instituted another closed rule and will not allow us to debate the issues. This is the fifth Congress that we have debated bankruptcy reform, and we have heard that this morning. To be fair, we have not debated this bill under open rules in the past, but we have certainly debated them under rules that allowed amendments. This chart shows the number of amendments that the Committee on Rules made in order on this bill in every Congress since the 105th, and I insert in the Record at this point a list of the rules. Number of Amendments Made in Order on Bankruptcy Bills--105th-109th Congress 105th Congress (H. Res. 452)--12 amendments made in order. 106th Congress (H. Res. 158)--11 amendments made in order. 107th Congress (H. Res. 71)--6 amendments made in order. 108th Congress (H. Res. 147)--5 amendments made in order. 109th Congress (H. Res. 211)--Closed Rule, 0 amendments made in order. This chart shows a disturbing pattern, Mr. Speaker, a pattern that has become common practice here in the House. In every Congress, Republican leaders have allowed fewer and fewer amendments to be debated. We started at 12 amendments in the 105th Congress; and in the 109th Congress, we have a completely closed rule. Zero amendments are in order. There is less and less democracy in this House, and every Congress fewer voices are being heard on the floor. The Democrats on the Committee on Rules last month issued a report studying the disturbing trend toward less democracy and deliberation in this House. During this last Congress and this closed rule today convinces me we are only getting worse. So, Mr. Speaker, I say again we have disallowed the amendments that would have let us make this a better bill, a bill that would protect more vulnerable people in this country, including our soldiers who have returned from Iraq, most of those in the National Guard and Reserves, many of whom are losing their houses because they were called back time and again and were to able to maintain their houses. It is a disgrace we were not allowed to bring that amendment to the floor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, a dark cloud and a suspicion of corruption hangs over this House of Representatives. It is the talk of the Nation. With no Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or reasonable ethical standards to speak of, there is no hope that the dark cloud will recede and that daylight will be let in. By systematically dismantling the House ethics process, the majority has denied this House the right to investigate its own Members and thus betrayed our core American values. Honesty, integrity, and accountability, the values, which should be the hallmark of this government, have instead been thrown under the bus by an arrogant majority, casualties in a misguided campaign to shield from accountability those who abuse this House. This House cannot function without an open, accountable, and independent ethics process; and the molestation of that process by the majority is an abuse of power that cannot stand. It is for these reasons I have repeatedly asked the Chair of the Committee on Rules to hold a bipartisan ethics hearing. As guardians of the democratic process, our Committee on Rules has the unique responsibility to protect the integrity of this hallowed institution. What are we waiting for? This dark cloud must be lifted, the air must be cleansed, and the ethics rules must be fully restored, because the very credibility of the government and its ability to lead the American people hang in the balance.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Canisius College Golden Griffens Women's Basketball Team on winning the 2005 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC) Tournament on March 7, 2005. Their win over Marist College gives the ``Griffs'' its first-ever MAAC Championship and their first bid to the Division I NCAA Tournament. The ``Griffs'' have had a truly remarkable season. After narrowly missing out on the MAAC Championship last season, Canisius capped their first 20-win season with a nail-biter in the MAAC Championship game. Their victory, like their entire season, was exemplified by a total- team effort. In the biggest game of her career, Becky Zak scored 12 points, three assists and two steals, and was named the tournament's Most Valuable Player. Megan Lyte tallied 10 points and 11 rebounds, her seventh double-double of the season, and Jessie Lamparski registered 11 points, six boards, five assists and three steals. Jessica Steeves posted eight points, five rebounds and a blocked shot en route to joining Zak on the all-tournament accolades. The accomplishment of the Canisius College Golden Griffins Women's Basketball team demonstrates the profound impact that Title IX has had on increasing opportunities in sports for women and girls. Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, required that public schools and colleges provide equal educational and athletic opportunities for girls and women. It has unquestionably been a tremendous factor in the lives of the talented members of this team. It is important for girls and women to have every opportunity to succeed, especially when it comes to athletics. That is why I have introduced H.R. 595, the High School Athletics Accountability Act. This bill will require schools to report to the Department of Education basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. Currently, high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for schools and parents to ensure fairness in athletics programs. Better information can help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Mr. Speaker, I cannot be prouder of the Canisius Women's Basketball team. I especially want to applaud coach Terry Zeh. As a first year coach, he demands accountability from his players both on and off the court, and is a strong role model for the entire college community. I wish to also commend college president Rev. Vincent M. Cooke, S.J., the coaching staff and players, and the student body for this Championship season. These women continue to be role models for young girls, and their wonderful accomplishment will inspire more girls to increase participation in athletics. I will be eagerly watching the team's first round game in the NCAA tournament as they proudly represent Canisius College on the national stage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, every day from this floor we hear our Members talk about values and morals that guide our Nation, but nothing reveals our true values as legislators more than how we choose to spend the American taxpayers' money. Each decision to fund a program or not to fund another is a conscious choice that we make. These choices have real consequences for the hardworking Americans we serve, and so, really, those choices are about our values and our morality. We, as legislators, choose to fund what is most important, what has the most value. That is why the Federal budget of the United States is a moral document. When we establish the financial priorities of the government each year, we show the American people in black and white what and who we value most. As the budget resolution we debate today shows with startling clarity, the majority's priorities I think are out of step with the values of the American people. The majority's budget resolution throws an additional $106 billion in tax cuts to the Nation's wealthiest, while cutting billions in crucial funding for health care, education and housing programs; programs that help the hardworking Americans get by from day-to-day; programs that give hope to mothers and fathers that they, too, may one day share in the American dream. I believe this budget resolution sends the wrong message, values the wrong priorities and shortchanges too many of our hardworking taxpayers that we should, in fact, be helping. What message are we sending about the values of this House when we cut more than $20 billion from Medicaid, threatening the health care of millions of children, seniors and disabled Americans? What message are we sending about the values of this House when we cut student loans, Pell grants and other educational spending by more than $21 billion? What message are we sending about this House when we cut more than $5 billion from farm and nutrition programs, slashing the food stamp program that so many Americans depend on to feed their children? How can we hurt all these people, cut all this funding, slash all these programs and still afford $106 billion in tax cuts for our wealthiest, a tax cut that balloons the deficit and shifts the financial burden to pay those taxes to our grandchildren and our children? That is right. Every penny we give away in this budget's massive tax cut to the wealthy shifts the burden of those taxes to the middle class and to the working poor who cannot even get unemployment benefits extended or an increase in the minimum wage out of this Congress. What will it take for this House to get its priorities in order? How much debt will we strap to the backs of our future generations before we get smarter? How much must we borrow from foreign countries to feed the majority's insatiable appetite for economic Darwinism? In 5 short years paying the interest, and this is so important I want to repeat this, by 2009, the interest that we pay on the Nation's debt will cost by itself more than all the domestic, non-defense, discretionary spending combined. That is very close by. Simply put, for every dollar we could be spending on roads and schools and putting more cops on the street, fifty cents of it will be passed on to foreign countries to finance the deepening debt with which this majority continues to encumber us. That is on top of the debt we incurred earlier today of $80 billion that we are hoping the Chinese will finance. If the majority had its way our grandchildren would end up having to use those privatized Social Security accounts they have been pushing for the past few weeks to pay off this massive new debt that Congress keeps throwing at them. What is the problem? What is included in this budget is just as horrifying as what is excluded from it. In a disingenuous attempt to conceal their own economic short- sightedness, this majority has purposely hidden the harmful effects of their Social Security privatization plan, a plan that could cost the taxpayers trillions over the next 10 years, from this budget resolution. They have low-balled the cost of the war in Iraq, spending only $50 billion over the next year, which just today we voted for $80 billion. Let me compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) because if he had not put $50 billion in, there would have been nothing because the President did not include it at all in his budget. I call on any Member of the majority to stand here today and tell me we will spend just $50 billion and $50 billion alone next year. Rather than show the true cost of their budgetary unmindfulness, the majority has chosen to conceal from the public the true cost of their plans, and as they prepare to pass this resolution and further cripple the financial viability of our Nation, the real knockout punch looms on the horizon. Social Security privatization, while not detailed in this budget, would have disastrous, long-term, far-reaching impacts on the budget. The plan would cut Social Security benefits, make solvency problems worse and require massive borrowing, mostly again from the foreign countries, to the tune of $4 to $5 trillion over the next 10 years, and we have no less authority than Vice President Cheney who verifies this. In order to make certain that we are able to meet future budget obligations for the health and well-being of our children, our seniors, our veterans and disabled, we must protect Social Security from privatization. Therefore, at the end of this debate, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can consider legislation by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), our colleague, that will prohibit the use of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the administration's ill-advised private accounts plan. Whether my friends on the other side of the aisle want to admit it or not, the administration plan to divert Social Security payroll taxes to private accounts will cut future Social Security benefits and make it nearly impossible to meet the future needs of so many Americans. That is why it is so important to stop this potential hemorrhage of Social Security in its tracks. The Salazar bill is a good step to show the American people that we will not allow their retirement checks to be slashed to pay for private accounts. It is time for this House to show the American people what we truly value. This is our choice today. Will we stand with the people we represent or with the CEOs, corporations and special interests that stand to gain from the tax cut and the plan to privatize Social Security? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.