Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be asking Members to join with me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so that I can modify the rule and allow the House to consider two very critical amendments for our Nation's combat soldiers that were rejected last night in the Committee on Rules. The first amendment by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) will help our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in two important ways: First, it will provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care. Additionally, it will provide $100 million for reintegration services for the Army and National Guard members being released from active duty and returning to civilian life. The second amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) would expand mental health care by providing $238 million to the VA for a post-deployment mental health initiative and $35 million for the Defense Department to contract with private mental health providers for counseling the returning service members. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not block consideration of the supplemental. The bill will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from voting to help our veterans in these very important areas. I urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers and vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the third major supplemental appropriations bill Congress has considered for Iraq and Afghanistan. A war and reconstruction that the administration told us could be completely financed by Iraqi oil revenues has cost the American taxpayer a staggering $275 billion, and the end is nowhere in sight. As the price of this war continues to climb, we can no longer afford to ignore the equally expansive ``accountability'' gap that has developed in the White House. Harry Truman was famous for saying the buck stops here. After all, he was the President, and to him that meant he had to take responsibility for his government. He was accountable to the people he served. But time and again our current President has demonstrated his unwillingness to be held accountable for any decision, or commitment or blunder of his administration. And what is particularly disappointing is the willingness of the Republican leadership to assist the administration in its need to avoid accountability. Let me give an example. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) came before the Committee on Rules last night, offered an amendment which would have established a select committee to follow up on a very disturbing report just released from the Inspector General's Office. The report indicates that $9 billion spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for and no one knows where it is. In one case, the Inspector General raised the possibility that thousands of ghost employees were on one unnamed ministry's payroll. In another case, a firm was allegedly paid $15 million to provide security during civilian flights into Baghdad even though no planes flew during the term of the contract. In another case, a Pentagon contract for the development of bulletproof armor was given to a ``former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything,'' and according to the New York Times, the researcher tried for a year to meet the order and finally was forced to give up completely. These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we often do not have, and place American's lives at risk. Mr. Speaker, we heard of another report just this morning that Halliburton has overcharged us, according to the Pentagon, by $100 million. The Tierney amendment would have established a House select committee to further investigate the allegations, much like the successful Truman Committee was established during the Second World War. The Committee on Rules Democrats tried to get the amendment made in order because we expect accountability from our government, but we were voted down on a party-line vote. Why? No one can reasonably suggest that this body does not have time to get to the bottom of these unresolved issues. After all, we spend on average only 2 days a week in this Chamber, and half the time we do spend here we are renaming Post Offices and honoring foreign dignitaries, and a few athletic endeavors. If we have enough time for that, we certainly have enough time to track down $9 billion that the administration seems to have misplaced. We have the time and energy to address rampant corruption in the way our contracts in Iraq are being administered. Certainly we have the will to infuse some accountability into the process, but apparently the leadership does not have the time or the will and truly demonstrates the hypocrisy of those in the majority who say they are for saving taxpayer money, except when it is being wasted by their administration. But it raises a more important question, and that is if we in this body will not hold the White House accountable for losing $9 billion, then who will? If it is not our job in this Chamber, then whose is it? There is another disturbing aspect to the lack of accountability in Iraq contracting. The administration was supposed to issue two reports detailing spending on both military operations and reconstruction activities in Iraq. That was done by law, one of the reports due on October 31, 2004, the other due January 1, 2005. Neither report has ever been delivered to the Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to provide the reports to Congress and they are breaking the law by not providing them. The majority in this body is breaking its bond of trust with the American people by not demanding these reports, and with them a measure of accountability for their administration. The American people expect the leadership of this Congress to be more than a rubber stamp for an administration that has shown itself to be secretive and dishonest time and time again. We have a responsibility to our fellow Americans, to our Constitution, to ensure that all branches of the government are held accountable to the American people. And speaking of accountability, this supplemental increases the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and subsidized life insurance benefits from $250,000 to $400,000 for families of soldiers who died or were killed on active duty from October 7, 2001. This is critical language which does two important things for our fighting men and women: Expands their life insurance and increases their death benefits. But what happened, these benefits, which will be legislating on an appropriation bill, require protection from the Committee on Rules against a point of order on the floor of the House. Sadly, the leadership refused to grant that protection in this rule, and those two measures are left open to a point of order. Therefore, any single Member of this body can stand up and knock out those provisions without any debate, without any vote, without any opportunity for dissent. This was no accident. Clearly the rule was written this way by design because we had to wait to get the rule after they completed those negotiations. And why are the benefits of our fighting men and women not worthy of protection? The sad truth is these men and women have the courage to protect us with their lives, and yet some in this Chamber do not have the courage to protect them with even a vote on the House floor. The Republican leadership has resorted to setting up a point of order to ensure the benefit increases never make it into law because they do not have the courage to vote it down themselves and they do not want to be accountable for the vote. The bill also includes funding for body armor, armored Humvees, electronic jammers and other necessary items to protect our troops which are long overdue. But as we listen to Member after Member rising to pay homage to the sacrifice of our fighting forces, I want my fellow Americans to remember who was willing to sacrifice those men and women on the House floor today. I also want them to remember two very important amendments which were not made in order by the Committee on Rules. The amendments by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) would have expanded veterans' health care and mental health care, but they were not included in the bill. Mr. Speaker, that is why at the conclusion of the debate I will ask Members to defeat the previous question to the rule so we can get a vote on the Hooley and DeLauro amendments and so we can move to protect the language in the bill which increases the benefits for our military personnel. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are over in Iraq today risking their lives to protect America and the world. The least we can do is provide them with decent health care when they return. Once we vote, our fellow Americans will know exactly where we all stand on health care for our veterans despite the rhetoric and legislative tricks, and that is what I like to call held accountable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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

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. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Niagara Falls High School Boy's Basketball team on winning the 2005 New York State Public High School Athletic Association Class AA Championship. The Niagara Falls Basketball Team is now ranked 7th in the country. The team won the state championship game by a score of 69 to 58, and just as noteworthy, they won the semi-finals by over 50 points. Every player on the team deserves credit for this victory. While Paul Harris, who won the Most Valuable Player award, should be congratulated, each team member worked very hard to bring home this championship title to Niagara Falls. I wish to commend Coach Bazzani and his staff and the leadership of the Niagara Falls School District for giving these young men the support and instilling in them their perseverance and winning attitude. I would also like to compliment the other members of this team--the cheerleaders and the Pep Band. The band made up of students including a father, has been at all the games inspiring the team and cheering on the crowd with their antics. They are as worth watching as the team. Mr. Speaker, I cannot be prouder of the Niagara Falls Boy's Basketball team. Again, I wish to commend Coach Bazzani, the coaching staff, players and the community for this successful championship season.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of this first rule. And I say that I am a bit concerned that it only makes in order 10 of the amendments. As explained by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) we will do the rest today. And I am fervently hoping that, since all of the amendments this morning are Republicans', that this afternoon we will do the Democratic amendments. There is one bipartisan amendment, however, that is very important, we believe, and that is the one that is being brought up by the Members in the New Jersey Delegation, that is, the Pascrell Amendment that allows States to enact anti-corruption laws curbing the practice of pay-to-play contracting and not lose their Federal highway dollars. These laws are critical to help stop the threat of real and apparent corruption resulting from large political contributions from contractors to influence the awarding of public contracts. Surely, we can help do that. We are currently operating under the sixth temporary extension of TEA-21, which was originally set to expire on September 30, 2003. I know that State and local transportation offices are finding it very difficult for the long-term planning that is necessary to adequately address the growing transportation needs around the country. As we in this body have been unable to agree on how to proceed with the critical legislation for some time, the significant infrastructure problems that plague the communities are worsening each day. In fact, today, 32 percent of all major roads in America are in poor or mediocre condition. According to a new report released last month by TRIP, a national nonprofit transportation research group, the City of Rochester, which is in my district, received a grade of F for the conditions of its roads. And according to that report, only 43 percent of Rochester's major roads are considered to be in good condition. To put that in proper perspective for everyone, I want to point out that a desirable goal for State and local organizations that oversee road maintenance is to keep 75 percent of major roads in good condition. And I want to share with you even a more startling statistic about my home town. More than half of the bridges in Rochester, New York are substandard condition or are structurally deficient, as they are categorized by the Department of Transportation, which means they are potentially dangerous. In fact, the bridges throughout my entire district in western New York are in desperate need of repair. This presents a serious safety issue for all of us to be concerned about, because this problem is not unique to Rochester or western New York, but is well documented in many areas around the country. And every day that we delay the implementation of the full highway reauthorization bill, we put Americans at risk when they travel these roadways and bridges. This is just unacceptable. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3, also known as TEA-LU, would reauthorize the Federal highway, public transportation, highway safety and motor carrier safety programs for 6 years, from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. The bill's funding represents 42 percent over the amount in the long- expired highway bill, and $4.5 billion higher than the level in the 2004 House-passed version of TEA-LU. How people and commerce move on our roadways is a concern for all Americans; it transcends party lines. And I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for developing a bill that is truly a bipartisan product. And I hope that other committees will follow their example. This bill is not only a transportation infrastructure bill but also an economic infrastructure bill. Not only are we building roads with this legislation; we are creating jobs. And for every $1 billion invested in Federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained. Transportation infrastructure generates up to a 6-to-1 net return on investment, and increased transportation investment also improves freight mobility. More than 67 percent of the Nation's freight moves on the highways, an annual value to the economy of more than $5 trillion, and there is no doubt that the economic impact of this transportation bill also touches our local communities. In Niagara Falls, which I represent, we are advancing with the International Railway Station and Intermodal Transportation Center which will assist in revitalizing Main Street and also enable United States officials to efficiently inspect the Amtrak passengers who cross the U.S.-Canadian border on the New York State Empire Corridor and Amtrak's Maple Leaf Service to Toronto. The project aims to reduce the chronic delays that burden our strong trade relationship with Canada. With record levels of trade moved across the northern border, including the bridges in my district, we must invest in our transportation infrastructure system to ensure the health of our economy, and I am pleased to see that TEA-LU provides $1.25 billion in funding for the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, which allocates funds to border States for highway projects that will improve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods across the border between the United States and Mexico, and the United States and Canada. But beyond our borders, we need a reliable national transportation system to move products and services. As the process moves forward, I encourage my colleagues to focus on meeting each State's need. An adequately funded transportation system is good for each State's economy and its quality of life. I look forward to voting for the underlying bill as the first step toward meeting the next generation of the country's needs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, while we prepare to debate in the next few weeks a bill that will make it more difficult for personal bankruptcy filers to escape their debts, I rise today to speak about young people in this regard. We have seen a 50 percent rise in bankruptcy filings in the past 10 years among young people. I am reintroducing legislation today to address the growing problem of rising credit card debt among college students in the United States, a leading cause of bankruptcies filings among young people. In 2001, Nellie Mae conducted a study that found college students, on average are graduating with six credit cards in their wallets. In 2001, their credit card debt average was $2, 327, and graduating seniors had a combined college loan and credit debt of $20,402 each. Semester after semester, students open their mail boxes to find envelopes notifying them that they are preapproved for credit cards. When they check their e-mail, there are more credit card offers. When they answer the phone in their dorm room, there are more offers. Credit card companies pay college students generously to stand outside dining halls, dorms, and academic buildings and encourage their fellow students to apply for credits 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. Walk on a college campus from move-in day on, and getting inundated with credit card applications is unavoidable. I have heard personal stories from my district about college students overwhelmed by credit card debt. One junior in college has amassed a whopping $14,000 of credit card debt. And Victoria's Secret still gave her a credit card with a $2500 limit. One of my staffers was approved for a credit card when she was in college after misspelling her name on the application, giving an incorrect address, wrong phone number, and wrong social security number. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying attention to whom they are giving credit cards, much less if the applicants can afford to pay the balance. This must stop! 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. Instead of endless possibilities, students are burdened with endless debt. Studies show that over half of college students feel burdened by debt when they graduate. According to the Federal Trade Commission, by the time college students graduate, one in eight will have charged their way to more than $7,000 of credit card debt. Studies also show that the likelihood of homeownership decreases as student debt increases. It is heartbreaking to me that young college students could jeopardize the possibilities of their future due to easy access to lines of credit that are not based on any income or creditworthiness requirements. Why are we making it so easy for our young people to amass such outrageous amounts of debt that can only lead to personal ruin? That is why I, along with Representative Duncan, my friend from Tennessee, have reintroduced the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. The bill will take important steps toward reducing, and eliminating, credit card debts to college students by requiring credit card companies to determine whether a student applicant has the financial means to payoff 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address this critical issue facing our young people, and I urge this House to consider and pass this bill quickly. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stem this problem, because the policy implications of thousands of young people filing bankruptcy are dire.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Niagara University Men's Basketball Team on winning the 2005 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC) Tournament on March 7, 2005. Their win by a score of 81-59 over Rider University clinched the Purple Eagles' second NCAA Tournament berth, the first appearance since 1970. After heartbreaking losses in the conference title game two out of the last three years, the Purple Eagles showed their perseverance to break through to the ``big dance.'' The accomplishments of Juan Mendez, who was the MAAC player of the year and named tournament MVP, and all- tournament teammates Lorenzo Miles and David Brookshad are impressive, but each member of the team needs to be congratulated for this title game win. However, a team is only as successful as its leader, and Coach Joe Mihalich, now in his seventh season at Niagara University, exemplifies everything that is good about college athletics. He demands accountability from his players both on and off the court, and is a strong role model for the entire University community. Under Mihalich's guidance, the Purple Eagles have won three of the past seven MAAC regular-season titles, advanced to the MAAC Championship game three times, and has posted seven-straight winning seasons. Along the way, Mihalich quietly has collected the second-most wins in school history and was the first Niagara coach to reach 100 wins in just his sixth season at the helm. Mr. Speaker, I cannot be prouder of the Niagara University's Purple Eagles, and I wish to commend University President Father Joseph Levesque, the coaching staff and players, and students at Niagara University for this championship season. I will be eagerly watching the team's first round game in the NCAA tournament as they proudly represent Niagara University on the national stage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can change the rule to include my amendment to restore fairness and accountability in the media by requiring broadcast licensees to air programming that offers diverse views on issues important to the local communities in which they broadcast. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday but was defeated on a party line vote. The majority may claim that the amendment is technically nongermane to the bill, but I think it is an integral part of this discussion. Mr. Speaker, this issue is not a partisan one. Every Member of the House should be concerned by the direction that the broadcast media has taken, particularly in the last two decades since the rescission of the fairness doctrine. Ratings and sensationalism far too often replace responsible, nonbiased, and comprehensive reporting of the news. News is meant to provide balanced and important information on the issues that impact the lives of our citizens. The media has a most important responsibility to its communities to deliver the type of programming that meets the unique needs of each broadcast audience. In fact, it is more than a responsibility, it is an obligation. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can include this important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering the legislation. We will still be able to consider the broadcast decency enforcement bill in its entirety. We will still be able to consider and vote on the Upton- Markey manager's amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from having any opportunity this year, and probably this term, to debate and vote on the very serious matter of media fairness and responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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, I thank my colleague from West Virginia and congratulate her on her first rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, but I am disappointed that the rule will not let us engage today in the debate that this House and our country desperately need to have, a debate about how the lack of standards in the broadcast media is threatening some of our most basic democratic values. The underlying bill, which I supported last year and intend to support again today, addresses a very narrow part of the problem of decency within broadcasting. It increases the penalties on media companies who openly flaunt the FCC's rules against obscene broadcasts. Mr. Speaker, when we give media companies the right to broadcast in our communities on our airwaves, one of the few things we ask in return is they refrain from broadcasting lewd, indecent programs during the hours that children may be listening or watching. That does not seem like a lot to ask, but many media companies seem to find it hard to comply even with the most basic rule, a rule most Americans practice every day in their lives. Put simply, you do not say crude or offensive things when you are a guest in somebody's home and their children are in the room. This is an American value that we can all embrace, so I would ask why the standards are different for the media. The bottom line is that they should not be. The FCC has fined a number of broadcast licensees over the past several years for lewd and inappropriate broadcasts, and I hope that the increased penalties in the bill will make these companies think twice before they do it again. But with all the money they make, I doubt that. But refraining from obscene broadcasts does not mean that our media companies are fulfilling their obligation to broadcasts in the public interest. In fact, I would submit that an even greater indecency is the declining standards of fairness, accountability and truth in America's broadcast media today. After all, should we not ensure that our broadcast media present a diversity of views about the most important issues that face the country? Issues upon which our democracy depends should at least be as important as regulating the words and images we allow broadcasters to use in sit-coms and Super Bowl half-time shows. Sweeps Week stunts only underscore how these large, distant media companies routinely sweep important local news, balance, truth, and objectivity under the rug. I am talking here about core American values, values that most of us were taught as children and practice every day: be accountable for what you say and do; be truthful and fair in your dealings; balance your approach to life. But time and time again, we have failed to demand that mega-media corporations uphold these most basic American values. And all this despite the fact that the same companies use the public airwaves broadcasting into our homes every night and are the primary tool that most Americans use to learn about the world around them. Ever since the Reagan administration rescinded the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 our broadcast standards have not only been in just a steep decline but they are fast approaching extinction. When newspeople present political opinion as hard news with no accountability or fact for truth, I call that indecent. When it becomes common practice to pay members of the media to deceptively advocate a political agenda on public airwaves without disclosure to the public, I call that indecent. When a television broadcaster uses his license to present one-sided, factually erroneous documentaries designed to impact the outcome of a national election without equal time or standard for truth, I call that indecent and dangerous. And what about the so-called reporter who gained access to the White House press room under dubious circumstances to ask loaded rhetorical questions without even his colleagues, much less his audience, knowing he is a fraud? I call that overwhelmingly indecent. In a relatively short time, we have abandoned the high ethical standards of truth and objectivity demonstrated by such giants as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite in favor of the bias of pseudo- journalism demonstrated by Armstrong Williams, Jeff Gannon, and Bill O'Reilly. This is a sure recipe for the dumbing-down of America. In fact, USA Today reported yesterday that despite the fact that 60 percent of Americans get their news from local television, those same companies have nearly given up covering local political races and issues in recent years. According to the article, in the month leading up to the last election, the one just passed, just 8 percent of the local evening newscasts in 11 of the Nation's largest TV markets devoted time to local races and issues. Ninety-two of them paid no attention. That is 8 percent. In other words, for every minute of news that they show, they spend 4.8 seconds discussing the issues that shape our neighborhoods, our communities and our families, and for most Americans, that is the only news they will get. Enough is enough. The public deserves better. The American people know they are being deceived. They are fed up, and they are taking action to do something about it. Look at the 2 million comments that ordinary Americans sent to the FCC to stop even more media consolidation from taking place last year. The public expects us to do more. They expect us to act in their interests. They expect us to defend and uphold their values, values we should all share: truth, honesty, objectivity and balance. We can do so much more than what we are just discussing here today. When the committee met to report this rule last night, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I brought amendments to the committee that we thought would broaden this debate today into the one we really ought to be having. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment would have rolled back broadcast media consolidation rules to their pre-2003 levels, and my amendment would restore the fairness doctrine and bring more accountability to the news, but we were rejected. They only wanted to talk today about decency, and we were not germane to the bill. In a technical sense, they may be correct, but we all know that to have a real debate on what is happening to our culture today, the House would have to talk about the issues our amendments address. Sadly, that will not happen today. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, I intend to call for a no vote on the previous question so that I may modify the rule to allow for consideration of my amendment on fairness and accountability in broadcasting, and I hope that all Members of this House will join me in voting against the previous question to have this opportunity to restore fairness and accuracy in the media. I only hope that in the 109th Congress we will have that discussion. Our democracy could very well depend on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to my colleague, at the end I am going to amend this rule to include what we are trying to do and what the speakers are speaking to. So that is perfectly legitimate for us to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).