Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question so we can change the rule and add the Stenholm amendment to reinstate pay-as-you- can-go programs in our budget process. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight party-line vote. I want to emphasize that this no vote will not in any way prevent or block the consideration of the underlying bill to increase the debt ceiling, but a yes vote will block us in voting to restore the pay-as-you-go provisions in the budget process. I urge a no vote on the previous question Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, the national debt hit $7,444,423,020,967.95. It translates to over $25,000 owed by each and every one of us. The national debt is growing so fast, $1.6 billion every single day, that the last seven digits on the national debt clock in New York City are flipping faster than can be seen by the human eye. No one is spared this heavy economic burden, not even America's children. In fact, today every child born in America comes into this world owing a birth tax of $25,255 which is their share of payment on a national debt that they had no part in creating. To my friends on the other side of the aisle that fought with such fervor and passion against the so-called death tax, I ask, where is the moral indignation when it comes to the birth tax which is levied on this Nation's most innocent Americans, its children? This is a moral issue. The Federal Government cannot continue to borrow 20 cents of every dollar it spends, run up historic deficits, and add to the Federal debt without seriously harming the economy for generations yet unborn. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a measure to raise the debt ceiling for the third time in 3 years. The debt ceiling is a statutory limit, imposed by law on the total amount of debt that the United States of America can incur. It currently stands at $7.384 trillion. At the beginning of President Bush's first term, Congress was told that the debt ceiling would not need to be raised until the year 2008 at the earliest. However, if we count the $800 billion increase provided for under S. 2986, the bill to be considered later today, the debt limit will have been raised by more than $2 trillion since President Bush took office. On this day, with Americans coming together in Little Rock, Arkansas, to open the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, I find myself waxing nostalgic for the budget policies of the 1990s: the PAYGO rules, the spending caps and other critical budget policies that set our Nation's budget on a path to historic surpluses and allowed us to pay down the national debt for 7 straight years. It was not easy but it was the right thing to do. Last night in the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), offered an amendment to S. 2986 to help us get on the path of fiscal discipline. The Thompson amendment, co- authored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of this body's most thoughtful Members on budget issues, would have allowed this body to restore the PAYGO rules and spending caps that were allowed to lapse in 2002. Regrettably, the Thompson amendment was rejected and my colleagues are being denied the opportunity to restore some budget discipline. Mr. Speaker, our national deficit keeps hitting historic highs, $413 billion by the end of September, and no end in sight, particularly as we are spending $5 billion a month on the war. At this rate, deficits will continue for years to come, adding several trillion at a minimum to the colossal debt we have already incurred. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that at the current rate of deficit spending, by the year 2014 the debt ceiling will have to be raised to $14.5 trillion. Chronic budget deficits also undermine the economic security of Americans. As the government's appetite for money increases and it consumes more and more of the capital available in credit markets, more Americans will face higher interest rates and find it harder to finance their homes, their education, and their businesses. Moreover, there is cause for alarm when we look at how this debt is being financed. I have serious concerns about how this Nation will maintain its sovereignty as foreign governments and nationals continue to bankroll us. Today, the Japanese hold over $600 billion in U.S. debt paper and the Chinese hold between $225 and $275 billion. When 90 percent of new debt is purchased by the likes of the Bank of China and Japanese interests, how can we be sure that we have the resources to provide for the national defense? How do we ensure our independence when foreign governments who do not share our Nation's values or views on foreign policy issues buy up our bonds? I strongly believe that the level of foreign holdings is a grave and gathering threat to our Nation's sovereignty. Mr. Speaker the closed rule before us today only allows an hour to debate the national debt. That is simply not enough time to debate an issue that affects every man, woman and child, living and unborn, in this country. Moreover, the majority's refusal to let the Simpson- Stenholm PAYGO amendment come to the floor for a vote is foolhardy. Without a major change in course, we are on the path to debt for generations to come. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2004] Soaring Ceilings This week the lame-duck Congress will have to raise the federal debt ceiling. For several weeks the Treasury Department has been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations. Now, with the election safely past and Treasury at the limits of its ingenuity, lawmakers will do the inevitable and increase the government's borrowing authority by as much as $800 billion--raising the debt ceiling to more than $8 trillion. This will be the third time in three years that the debt limit has been increased, for a grand total of more than $2 trillion during President Bush's first term. The last hike was nearly $1 trillion, but it took less than 18 months for the government to hit the newly raised ceiling. By way of comparison, the entire federal debt in 1980 was less than $1 trillion; There will be some noisy debate about this, only partly on point. The debt limit, as now defined, both overstates and understates the problem of the national debt. It overstates the problem by including not only what an ordinary person would think of as ``real debt''--the $4.3 trillion the government has borrowed--but also money the government essentially owes itself. These are the ``trust funds'' to finance future obligations, such as Social Security and Medicare, that the government ``borrows'' from to pay its current bills. To the extent this reflects a debt, it's of a different sort from a Treasury bond. But if this is a debt, the ceiling understates the problem because the trust fund IOUs the government issues to itself don't come close to reflecting the full cost of its future commitments to those programs. This much is beyond question: The government is living far beyond its means. The deficits it racks up year after year impede economic growth, burden future generations and force the United States to rely on foreign governments and investors. Since Mr. Bush took office, foreign holdings of U.S. debt have grown from 30 percent to 43 percent of the total, and 90 percent of the new debt has been purchased by foreigners. Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education and other programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government's interest payments are expected to more than double between 2003 ($153 billion) and 2010 ($319 billion); interest costs will account for almost 10 percent of federal spending in the next decade. ``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,'' Mr. Bush said in his first State of the Union address. He was speaking about his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion in government debt held by the public. Now, instead of being eliminated, debt held by the public-- real debt--is on track to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. How do Mr. Bush and all the lawmakers who have enabled his irresponsibility plan to explain that to the grandchildren? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 494-497, 502, 505, 507-508, 510-512, 517, 518, 520-524, and 526- 527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 495, 496, 497, 502, 505, 507-508, 510, 511, 512, 517, 518, 520, 521, 522, and 527. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 494, 523, 524 and 526. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for far too many Americans, justice delayed is justice denied in our Federal Court system. Regrettably, today's Federal courts find themselves without the resources to adjudicate the cases in a timely fashion. Compliance with the Speedy Trials Act of 1974 must seem like an unachievable goal to judges all across this Nation, that struggle to keep our Federal court systems functioning. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us is a restrictive rule that allows for 1 hour of general debate on this bill to create 47 new Federal district judge positions and add 11 circuit judgeships to the Federal bench. It allows consideration of only two of six amendments offered in the Committee on Rules last night. Mr. Speaker, I agree that adding new judgeships would help address the backlog in the Federal courts; however, to do so without addressing the congestion in the Federal Bankruptcy Courts is analogous to trying to stop a hemorrhage with a Band-Aid. It is worth noting that the other body's version of this bill would create 34 bankruptcy judge positions. It is also worth noting that one of the rejected amendments offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), in the Committee on Rules last night would have created 36 new permanent and temporary bankruptcy judgeships. We would have a better debate on this bill today if this body were allowed to debate the thoughtful amendments that the rule does not make in order. Mr. Speaker, the Federal courts are hurting. Just last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to delay 42 court construction projects across the country to save $225 million and to avoid laying off as many as 3,500 employees. Last year, Federal courts had to cut 1,000 jobs. The lack of staffing resources only compounds the backlog problem, and the remaining staff is grievously overworked. Even with this extreme action, the Judicial Conference reports that as many as 4,800 court clerks, probation officers and other support staff could still lose their jobs in the next year. According to the chief judge of the bankruptcy court for the Western District of New York, the number of bankruptcy cases filed has steadily increased nearly 10 percent for each of the last 4 years. Yet despite the increased workload, the court's funding was substantially reduced over the past 2 fiscal years, and it is bracing itself for a 15 percent reduction in fiscal year 2005. Judge John Ninfo writes that ``the immediate impact is the need for the court to terminate the employment of four to five people, all of whom have served this court extremely well. The adverse impact upon the families of those people will be substantial.'' Judge Ninfo goes on to say, ``The court anticipates the need to significantly reduce services to the bar and the public, which will cause hardship on debtors and creditors during a time that is already difficult and stressful.'' Mr. Speaker, we must do more to address the backlog in the Federal courts than simply adding new positions to the bench. We must provide the resources necessary for staffing and the efficient operation of justice. We must show more respect for the third branch. Vilifying the courts or singling out so-called activist judges is counterproductive. Certainly, stripping jurisdiction away from the courts to hear cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance or same-sex marriage is not helpful and, I do not believe, constitutional. The current push to strip the courts of jurisdiction when controversial decisions are issued is not novel. It has been tried before. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Congress repeatedly attempted to strip the courts of the power to hear school desegregation suits or to order busing to achieve integration. More recently, it has been tried to strip courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to laws prohibiting abortion or suits against public schools that require prayer. These shortsighted efforts raise significant balance-of-power questions and demean this austere body. Lest we forget the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who two centuries ago explained that the courts are the ``impenetrable bulwark'' that transform the Bill of Rights into enforceable rights, a very important statement. I, therefore, caution my colleagues to consider the full ramifications of court-stripping action. It does little good to have an abstract constitutional right if no court can ever enforce it. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today provides this body with the opportunity to take a look at the state of the judiciary. Adding new judgeships will help, but we need to do more to ensure the strength and the independence of the judicial branch, the protector of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Mr. Speaker, I call for a ``no'' vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I simply want to make the point that on a party-line vote, the Rules Committee Republicans rejected making the following four bipartisan amendments in order under the rule: The first one was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to increase Federal judges' salary; A Democratic amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) permitting Federal judges to allow photographing or televising court proceedings at their discretion; An important amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that would allow a party to petition for a three-judge panel to override a Federal judge's refusal to recuse herself or himself from a case; And the Republican amendment, a very important one, by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to create 36 new permanent and temporary bankruptcy judges. I think that renders this bill fairly useless, Mr. Speaker. 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. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and 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 rise today to honor the life of Dr. Katherine Eisenberger Keough, who served with absolute distinction as President of St. John Fisher College in Pittsford, NY, and departed this life on September 25, 2004. American academia has lost one of its most dedicated leaders, and the communities of Pittsford and Rochester, NY, have lost an exemplary leader and friend. Since assuming the presidency in 1996, Dr. Keough's tenure at St. John Fisher College was marked by progressive excellence and committed leadership. As the first woman president of a well respected college steeped in religious traditionalism, Katherine Keough ushered in a new and more prominent era at the college; one that will long speak for her, now that her own voice is silent. Guided by Dr. Keough's expertise and leadership, St. John Fisher College has initiated 20 new graduate and undergraduate programs and a new business school. Student enrollment at the college at this time is very close to double the number of students enrolled at the time Dr. Keough took office. New buildings are currently under construction at the college, which will include Dr. Keough's envisioned School of Pharmacy, a new residence hall and a new student center. Plans for these initiatives were in process at the time of Dr. Keough's untimely demise. While known for her stately and stoic persona, and widely respected for her strict adherence to personal and professional ethics, Dr. Keough also possessed a kind and generous spirit. Her family and friends will long remember her as an extraordinarily giving individual whose legacy will live on into infinity. In the 1970's when Dr. Keough's husband, William, visited the American Embassy in Iran before his scheduled return to America from a business trip abroad, he was seized by Iranian rebels and detained as a hostage, along with other unsuspecting Americans. After consideration of all of the relatives associated with the then American hostages in Iran, Dr. Katherine Keough emerged as the individual who could best articulate the thoughts and feelings of American families of hostages to then President Jimmy Carter. Dr. Keough's presentation to President Carter was a poignant one that assisted the President with bringing the hostage situation to a peaceful and successful conclusion. Mr. Speaker, today it is my great privilege to honor the life and profound works of Dr. Katherine Eisenberger Keough. I wish to extend my thoughts, prayers and deepest sympathy to Dr. Keough's son, Steven, her daughters, Kathryn and Alyssa, her six grandchildren and to her dear friends.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and its leaders, Congresswomen Shelley Moore Capito, Ginny Brown-Waite and Hilda L. Solis and myself, to honor the amazing achievements of the women athletes at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. In particular, I want to celebrate the success of the United States Women's Soccer Team, who made us proud by winning a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics, beating Brazil 2-1 in overtime, on August 26, 2004. I would especially like to recognize Julie Foudy and Brandi Chastain, our honored guests for a Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues reception today, Tuesday, September 28, 2004, celebrating the accomplishments of female U.S. Olympic athletes. As Captain and 16-year veteran of the U.S. Women's National Team, Julie Foudy is one of the most influential athletes in the United States. Through the end of 2003, she had started in 229 of the 239 games in which she appeared, including all six of the world championship events played by the U.S. women. And if that was not impressive enough, she scored in all four of the Women's World Cup tournaments. Her teammate, Brandi Chastain, another long-standing player on the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, provided one of the greatest moments in the history of sports with her penalty kick on the USA's fifth shot in the 1999 Women's World Cup Final at the Rose Bowl. These women have become some of the most famous athletic role models on earth. They have taught our children that if you work hard and you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Indeed, these women are helping to fundamentally change perceptions about athletics. It is no surprise that our little girls look up to these strong, motivated women for inspiration. But to also see little boys wearing jerseys emblazoned with the names of their favorite women players is a wonderful sight. The accomplishments of this generation of women athletes 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 requiring that public schools and colleges provide equal educational and athletic opportunities for girls and women, has unquestionably been a tremendous success. The members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team have been tireless advocates for Title IX. Their efforts have helped the Women's Caucus and our male colleagues to preserve and strengthen this historic law. It is important for girls to have every opportunity to succeed, especially when it comes to athletics. That is why the leadership of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has introduced H.R. 4994, 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. As a testament to the power of these women, their fan appreciation tour, which kicks off in Rochester, on September 25, sold out all 14,000 seats in just minutes. I have introduced a bill in Congress, H. Res. 373, which supports the re-establishment of the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). Hopefully, some day the WUSA will return, to give every amazing female soccer player the professional athletic opportunities in the United States they so deeply deserve. Thank you to all the women Olympic athletes for transforming the lives and attitudes of today's young women, and for those of generations to come. We all know that girls who compete in sports perform better in school, are physically healthier and have a stronger self-esteem. Our girls have learned that sweat is sexy, brawn is beautiful and a little dirt never hurt anyone. You have truly given us all a whole lot more to celebrate, work hard for and dream about.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. The rule before us is a closed rule allowing only 60 minutes of debate and prohibits consideration of all the Democratic amendments offered to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals District of Columbia's laws that ban the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic weapons that have been in effect for over three decades. Our constituents expect us to work on issues of national concern. They expect us to complete the annual appropriations process and avoid a government shutdown. Yet, today, with the end of the fiscal year 2 days away, Congress has only managed to complete one appropriation bill. They expect us to continue to provide States with Federal assistance to build and maintain the Nation's highways. However, Congress has not acted to renew authorization for billions of dollars for critical surface transportation projects that expire on Friday. They expect us to take up the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to make America safer. They expect us to enact legislation to create new jobs and address the plight of the unemployed. They do not expect us to waste the little time remaining on a bill that the chief sponsor in the other body has all but abandoned hope of getting to the President. Why on earth is this body squandering the little time remaining in this session on this bill? One word. Politics. Brazen, election-year politics. With only 7 legislative days left in this Congress, I know that my constituents sent me here to vote on bills of more importance to their lives. H.R. 3193 repeals several District of Columbia firearms laws and limits the authority of the District to enact new firearms legislation. Specifically, the bill repeals the District's ban on the sale and possession of handguns, handgun ammunition and semiautomatic weapons. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin in expressing my outrage about the legislation before us today. The rule before us blocks consideration of meritorious amendments offered by my colleagues at Rules last night. These amendments would have reinstated the District's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, reinstated the Federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, and reinstated the District's prohibition on the sale of armor-piercing bullets--the so-called ``cop-killer'' bullets. I think the majority of our constituents would be appalled to learn that this bill exempts semiautomatic weapons that fire 12 or more shots without manual reload from the District's ``machine gun'' restrictions. We should be here considering legislation to renew the national assault weapons ban that unceremoniously expired a couple of weeks ago--not making a mockery of DC's restrictions on semi-automatic weapons. As DC Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to congressional leadership, ``It is unthinkable that while the Nation's capital is under alert, Congress should take action to expose more than half a million residents, almost 200,000 federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger.'' It is unthinkable to put our officers at greater risk at a time when Capitol Police--alone--are asking for $20 million to secure the Capitol Building for this year. The last thing they need to hear is that semi- automatic weapons can now be carried on the National Mall or cop-killer bullets are legal in the District. It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy of my colleagues who support this bill by arguing that the District's gun laws infringe on DC citizens' second amendment right to bear arms. While the bill changes the law to allow DC residents to carry pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and places of business, it does not repeal another DC gun law. The law we will not repeal today is the provision outlawing people from carrying or having readily access to a firearm ``upon the United States Grounds or within the Capital Buildings.'' So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in DC, but not in our offices. It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was terrorized by snipers who killed 10 people in the region, and while the Nation's capital is still under a terrorist alert, Congress would take action on this bill. We must not lose sight of the innocent victims of gun violence. Yesterday, the front page of the Washington Post reported that a 13- year-old boy was fatally shot inside his apartment, the 21st child killed this year in DC. When we voted on this same issue in the aftermath of the Columbine shootings, it failed by a vote of 175 to 250. I hope my colleagues remember their outrage to that senseless killing and recognize that this bill and the recent lapse of the 1994 Federal ban on semi- automatic weapons place our children in more danger. So, Mr. Speaker, to recap, we are not considering bills to create jobs, we are not passing the budgets for Federal agencies and services, and we are not improving our homeland security. No, today we are debating legislation to allow more lethal guns and ammunition to be on the streets of our Nation's capital--in the hands of would-be terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals. Mr. Speaker, again, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and to vote against the underlying bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing achievements of the women athletes at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. In particular, I want to celebrate the success of the United States Women's Soccer Team, who made us proud by winning a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics, beating Brazil 2-1 in overtime, on August 26, 2004. Every woman on the Olympic soccer team deserves our recognition and congratulations: Shannon Boxx, Brandi Chastain, Joy Fawcett, Julie Foudy, Mia Hamm, Angela Hucles, Kristine Lilly, Kristin Luckenbill, Kate Markgraf, Heather Mitts, Heather O'Reilly, Cindy Parlow, Christie Rampone, Cat Reddick, Briana Scurry, Lindsay Tarpley, Aly Wagner, and Abby Wambach. These women have become some of the most famous athletic role models on earth. They have taught our children that if you work hard and you believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Indeed, these women are helping to fundamentally change perceptions about athletics. It is no surprise that our little girls look up to these strong, motivated women for inspiration. But to also see little boys wearing jerseys emblazoned with the names of their favorite women players is a wonderful sight. The accomplishments of this generation of women athletes 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 requiring that public schools and colleges provide equal educational and athletic opportunities for girls and women, has unquestionably been a tremendous success. The members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team have been tireless advocates for Title IX. Their efforts have helped the Women's Caucus and our male colleagues to preserve and strengthen this historic law. It is important for girls to have every opportunity to succeed, especially when it comes to athletics. That is why the leadership of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has introduced H.R. 4994, 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. As a testament to the power of these women, their fan appreciation tour, which kicks off in Rochester, on September 25, sold out all 14,000 seats in just minutes. I have introduced a bill in Congress, H. Res. 373, which supports the reestablishment of the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA). Hopefully, some day the WUSA will return, to give every amazing female soccer player the professional athletic opportunities in the United States they so deeply deserve. Thank you to all the women Olympic athletes for transforming the lives and attitudes of today's young women, and for those of generations to come. We all know that girls who compete in sports perform better in school, are physically healthier and have a stronger self-esteem. Our girls have learned that sweat is sexy, brawn is beautiful and a little dirt never hurt anyone. You have truly given us all a whole lot more to celebrate, work hard for and dream about.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a rule that allows for same day consideration of a conference report for H.R. 1308, a bill to extend the middle-class tax provisions in the 2001 tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that any time the body chooses to stray from the regular order of business, it had better be for a darn good reason. It had better be to respond to some catastrophic or emergency situation. Things are dire out there for the 2.7 million Americans who have lost their good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2001. These workers live in a constant state of emergency and face the catastrophic prospect of losing their homes or sending their children to bed with empty stomachs. The fact the body has failed to extend unemployment insurance for nearly a year is a catastrophic failure, not a catastrophic success. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other bills languishing in conference committees that certainly warrant emergency consideration. What about the transportation bill? Immediate consideration of this bill could bring millions of Americans a step closer to getting back to work, because it is a job creation bill. And what about addressing the WTO tariffs on American exports? Should we not take immediate action to clear the path for more of our manufacturers to export their goods? Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is no shortage of bills that could be justifiably brought to the House floor under martial law, but, unfortunately, the bill we have before us today fails to meet that standard. Although I think everyone here in the House supports extending the middle class tax cuts, I do not like running roughshod over the rules of the House. What is this emergency? The earliest that any of these provisions would expire is December 31. Mr. Speaker, the majority has not made its case for taking this extraordinary action. The conference report was filed late this afternoon. In fact, we do not have any paper on it at all. So that makes it impossible for us to even continue with the bill. But for a bill that is going to cost nearly $150 billion, the majority owes it to us to provide us the time to read it. For these reasons, I cannot support the use of a martial law rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.