Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to discuss the previous question. Mr. Van Hollen is the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Mr. Van Hollen for clarification, and following that I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire of my colleague if he has any more requests for time?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If not, then I'm prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a wonderful day for us in some way because we are finally debating the Violence Against Women Act, with a great possibility of passing the Senate bill, which will protect all women in the United States and not just some. It's terribly important that we do that. And I think we may have caused some confusion there as we talk about violence against women, and we're also talking about the previous question which deals purely with sequestration. I would like to close speaking about that. I think everyone understands the importance that we attach to the Violence Against Women Act, but we are also very much concerned about sequestration. The reason we have brought it up on a previous question on the Violence Against Women Act is we've had absolutely no other opportunity to bring it up. The American public has been told over and over again that twice this House has passed legislation dealing with sequestration. All of us know--I'm not sure the public knows, but let me make it clear--that anything done before December 31 of last year is no longer valid. Nothing has been done this term to stop the sequestration. The only effort that has been made to do so has been done by Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has a very moderate request, one that does not do great harm either to the employment situation in the country or to the output of GDP, and what he said was terribly important. What we are about to embark on here is totally unknown. We know that it's bad. I think everybody has understood that it's bad. Why we would continue to do it is beyond my imagination. But let me make it absolutely clear here: no opportunity has been given to our side of the House to even attempt to deal with sequestration. This is it. For any Member of the House of Representatives who would like to go on record saying that they don't want sequestration to take place on March 1, this is your only opportunity. So we are asking that you will vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can at least go on record in this House and we can do our very best to stop what, by all accounts and by what all important economists say, will be an unmitigated disaster. If we defeat the previous question, we will offer the amendment, which will allow the House to vote on replacing the entire sequester for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to reducing our national deficit. It is a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker, not a meat-ax across the board. We have to act now if we're going to avert this crisis. I can't reiterate enough that this is our only chance. If we're going to avoid the unnecessary cuts to essential programs, the time is now. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues in this House, because none of us want to face that abyss, to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. How important that is for us, not only for our economic well-being, but for the well-being of our citizens. This is a foolish thing that we're doing here today, and I can't imagine anybody in the Senate would even contemplate bringing it up. So all of this is simply a waste of time, as we do here so many times. I urge my colleagues on both sides, vote ``no'' and please give us a chance to let Mr. Van Hollen bring his bill to the floor--or some bill from the Republican side. I don't care where it comes from. We have to stop sequestration. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC. Vote No on H.R. 273 Dear Republican Colleague: Next week, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 273. I urge you to vote no on this legislation. Let's be honest: this bill is nothing more than a political stunt that targets the hardworking, dedicated men and women of the civil service, who have already had their salaries frozen for more than two years. Everyone knows they are an easy target. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can balance the budget on the backs of federal employees. It's a drop in the bucket towards deficit reduction and a hollow gesture absent meaningful mandatory spending reforms. Worse, this is just busywork as our economy faces the sequestration meat ax. I believe that the federal government must be able to recruit and retain qualified individuals in order to deliver government services in an efficient manner. And about half of all federal employees make less than $60,000 a year. These are individuals who haven't had a pay raise in more than two years. And now we're talking about freezing their pay for a full third year. The president's proposed .5 percent adjustment is cheap grace ($225, since a quarter of it has already been frozen) and won't bring civil service pay close to the private sector, but it will at least attempt to tell these employees that they are valued. And just who are these federal employees? They are the people you call when you need help, and 85 percent of them live outside of the Washington, D.C. metro area. They are the CIA agents who planned the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. They work side-by-side with our military. Those agents depicted in Zero Dark Thirty? They haven't had a pay raise in more than two years. They are the FBI agents you call when your child has been kidnapped. Those agents who rescued the 5-year-old kidnapped and held hostage in a bunker in Alabama? They haven't had a pay raise in over two years. They are the Customs and Border Patrol and DEA Agents who are working to stop illegal immigrants and human traffickers and drug runners. The border patrol agents who worked side- by-side with slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry haven't had a pay raise in over two years. They are the nurses and doctors at the VA who care for our veterans and wounded warriors--they haven't had a pay raise in more than two years. I know I'm not alone in wanting the best doctors and nurses to care for our veterans. They are the foreign service officers who represent our government at embassies in Libya, Israel, Russia and beyond. The FSO's who worked side-by-side with slain Information Management Office Sean Smith in Benghazi haven't had a pay raise in more than two years. They are the FDA inspectors who trace E. coli outbreaks to ensure that our food is safe to eat. They are the NIH researchers working to find a cure for breast cancer, and prostate cancer, and Alzheimer's and Autism. They are the defense civilian riggers and machinists and refuelers and engineers repairing sophisticated electronic weaponry systems at Army depots and Air Force bases and shipyards who support our military personnel; They are the firefighters you call when a lighting strike sets a national forest on fire and homes and business are in danger. And they are the park service rangers who ensure that your constituents can safely hike and camp in our national parks and tour our battlefields. They are the scientists working at the DOE labs. They are the meteorologist at weather service storm centers tracking hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and blizzards. They are the NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists. Over the last Congress, unlike other groups, federal employees contributed more than $103 billion to deficit reduction--no other group was asked to sacrifice more. I know that these patriotic Americans are willing to do more, but they rightly expect all of us to fully join this effort. A vote for the bill next week isn't a vote just to cut a program, but it's a targeted vote to specifically freeze an individual's pay from a marginal increase--a personal affront to the employee and their entire family, including their spouses and children, and the retired parents who care about their children. I get it--this vote polls well with certain groups. But we were elected to represent our constituents. Let's pass bills that actually reduce the drivers of our nation's debt and deficit. This is cheap grace. Vote no. Please don't hesitate to contact me or Mira Lezell on my staff at 5-5136 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Frank Wolf, Member of Congress.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker and everyone who is listening, you know by now and what you've heard by now is they want sequestration. The local papers and the ones that we've printed on Capitol Hill today all say they want sequestration. The excuse they're giving is they're going to wait and see what the Senate will do, that we're not going to take any action here, that we're just going to be bystanders until we find out they want sequestration. Over 700,000 workers are going to lose their jobs. A lot of economists tell us that this could be worse than the Great Depression, but they're willing to do it. They're willing to do it because they want to fight this President. I think that means a whole lot more to them than doing their job here as elected Members of Congress. As we've heard before, we only have 6 legislative days left. When we come back from a week's vacation, we will have these cuts that will have this devastating impact on our economy and on the well-being of every American citizen. I urge the CEOs of America who are very worried, and they've said so for months and months, that they're concerned desperately about the prospect of sequestration, to talk to their Members here and get them to change their mind, if they can. This is really dire. We're not kidding around here. This is serious business. We are literally facing a fiscal cliff. But the solution we've made to this, as you all know, a manmade crisis here, they take a swing at their favorite punching bag and hold hostage again the people who make their living serving all of us. Last night was the first time I really heard that what we're doing, we're not going to save anything. Now, bear in mind that the Federal employees have already given in salary give-backs over $100 billion over the next 10 years. That should be enough sacrifice from them, but no, we're going to go for more. But we're not going to use it to reduce the deficit, it is going to be made available to agencies. Well, there's a lot of ``Alice in Wonderland'' sort of sense in Congress these days. Alice, one of the things that I liked about her the most, and she's a very strange little girl, but she said that she practiced as hard as she could to try to believe six impossible things before breakfast. And I'm trying to put this in that same category, and it simply is impossible for me to believe that we gain anything in the world by taking away the salary and income of hardworking government employees to put back in Federal agencies. Frankly, if any of you can really understand that, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know. We had a chance--in the last 2 weeks, we've had two chances--to do away with the sequester in a commonsense way and also to cut the deficit with a sensible solution. Mr. Van Hollen, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee and deserves our respect, was not allowed to do anything. As you pointed out, and I also heard Mr. McGovern say so, the Rules Committee now runs the House. There's no committee action on any of these bills. No chance for Republicans and Democrats in the committee setup, which the Founding Fathers did, and which we followed for generations and hundreds of years here, no possibility for them to discuss it. It simply is brought to Rules. Now, Mr. Van Hollen, his sensible solution here, which really does make sense, was simply not allowed to be put on the floor so that we could discuss it and give people a vote. A bipartisan group of the Members of the House don't want this bill passed. I'm going to put a letter in from one of the most thoughtful Members and a friend, Representative Wolf from Virginia, about what he thinks this is about. He calls this a cheap political trick, and I think that pretty well sums it up. Now, already cuts totaling $1.5 trillion have been made to discretionary spending. And as a result, because of the layoff of employees, our economy experienced an unexpected economic contraction in the final quarter of 2012, which we should pay heed to. Sequestration would compound our economic troubles even further. George Mason University says sequestration would cause 2.14 million American employees to lose their jobs. Meanwhile, important Federal programs would be crippled because of irresponsible cuts. I need to mention a few of them again. FAA, which makes flying safer, they would experience a great cutback. The people who guard the border, who do drug interdiction, who keep our border safe and strong, they would have a severe cutback. Sequestration would mean that vital research would be slowed. And as a scientist, let me assure you that research cannot be turned off and on like a faucet. It is necessary for us to maintain that research with dollars because, as it's been pointed out before, we want to keep our population healthy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do love my country, and my country is begging me, as I'm sure it is all other Members of Congress, to for heaven's sake get some of this taken care of and have some certainty. Talking with constituents just this morning, they were saying they simply don't know what to do. And what we're doing here again is just theater, as my colleague pointed out. This isn't a plan. It's a gimmick, and it has wasted valuable time. CBS News reported last year that it cost $24 million a week to operate the House of Representatives. On behalf of the taxpayers who pay those bills, we should be debating some serious legislation and come up with serious answers to our Nation's problems. And everybody has known from their grammar school days that the way we pass a bill is that the House proposes a bill, the Senate proposes a bill, they go through the committee processes, they are passed on through the committee, the subcommittees, then the major committee, then to the Rules Committee, in our case, and then we have a conference and we send it to the President. We don't do that anymore. The last two bills we dealt with on this floor just came directly to the Rules Committee. There was no committee action whatsoever, there was no discussion, there was no input. And yesterday, what really I think grieves me most is that there was a wonderful substitute put forward with great sincerity by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen. I think he's respected by all sides, and most of this country, for his wisdom and for his acuity. But could they put his substitute in order? No. They said they had to have a waiver. Well, that's what the Rules Committee is for. That's what the Rules Committee does. The Budget Committee itself has had at least 18 waivers in the last term. It just defies imagination. But this is $24 million again this week, where we're brought in from all of the corners of the United States at an expense to stand here and do absolutely nothing. If they want to know what the President wants to do, they should call him up and ask him. We don't have to do a resolution or a bill on the floor of the House to find that out if that's so important. What a crazy thing that we could do in this time of communication to say this is the way we're going to try to find out something--and find out what? The drastic across-the-board spending cuts are going to take effect on March 1. Now, the week after next we're taking another week off. We work about two and a half days here. It's really unfortunate. I think I can use that word without being called down, but I have much stronger words in my head. But instead of solving that looming crisis, again, they propose legislation that tries to change the subject. Try as they might, they can't hide from the fact that they are failing to provide help when American people need it most. Mr. Speaker, we are days away from a serious self-inflicted wound.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you. If the pending sequester were to take effect, there will be such drastic cuts to important programs, not only domestically, but as you heard Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, say, it would ``hollow out'' the military and leave our military fighting with one hand tied behind its back. Why would we do that? For no earthly reason why in the world would we put the United States through that? Taken together, these cuts, as was said before, would destroy jobs, reverse our economic recovery, just reverse it, and destroy the middle class. To get a glimpse of what drastic spending cuts would do to our economy, just look back to the end of 2012. As leading economists of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and President Obama have all pointed out, the drastic spending cuts at the end of last year are the leading causes--the leading causes--of our recent economic stagnation. Should the sequester take effect, our economy would suffer even more, and jobs would be lost as deeper and deeper spending cuts take effect. Is that the path the majority wants to walk down? Because if they keep spending our time debating stupid legislation like this, we're going to find ourselves on that path before too long. I agree with Mr. McGovern that many of our colleagues seem to want to go off that cliff for some kind of foolish exercise, knowing full well what is going to happen, and that is really shameful. Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues and I proposed legislation that would stop the sequester with Mr. Van Hollen's substitute, but, no, they would not do that. It was simply tossed aside. The majority chose to move forward with this restrictive and partisan process, closed rule again, that ignores the problems before us and moves forward with a political gimmick. As the clock continues to tick, I urge my colleagues to stop those gimmicks and get back to work. Again, the people I spoke with just today are saying over and over again some certainty has to be in this government. People have to know what the economic situation is going to be. We do not want to play Russian roulette in here with the American economy day after day and week after week. I urge my colleagues to stop wasting valuable time and let's provide that certainty.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I see a number of my colleagues have come to speak, so I'm going to be as brief as I can. I know that the chair of the Budget Committee has said that he can balance the budget in 10 years, which most economists and people say would certainly throw us into the worst depression, worse than 1929. I believe that what we are doing here--I can't prove it--but my suspicions are that this is something intended to cover that. They're trying to get the President into that trick box or something to try to do the same thing. Don't go, Mr. President. We can do better than that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Data Transparency Act. Since the enactment of Title IX in 1972, the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 600 percent while the number of high school girls competing in sports increased by over 1,000 percent. Yet, despite our incredible progress over the years, we still have more work to do. Young women in high school currently receive 1.3 million fewer opportunities to play sports than young men, and this gap is increasing. The problem stems from a lack of transparency and accountability in our high schools. Federal law requires colleges and universities to report basic information about the funding of athletic programs for men and women and the participation of men and women throughout these sports. Due in part to this public information, American women have unrivaled opportunity at the collegiate level. Unfortunately, the basic actions required of our universities are not required of our high schools. As a result, we are seeing fewer and fewer high schools realize full equality for male and female athletes, and more young women being denied the opportunity to realize their full potential both on and off the field. I've met with many Olympic gold medalists who have told me that Title IX--and the accompanying athletic scholarships it made possible--was the reason they were able to attend college and pursue their dreams. These Olympians have emphasized that the benefits of sports participation are not limited to their achievements on the field. Indeed, statistics have shown that young women thrive when they participate in sports and are less likely to get pregnant, drop out of school, do drugs, smoke, or develop mental illness. Increasing young students' physical activity can also help combat childhood obesity, which is at an all-time high. To address the lack of reporting at the high school level, the High School Data Transparency Act would require that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. This would be an easy change for our high schools to make. Several states, including Kentucky, Georgia, and New Mexico, have already implemented similar reporting requirements at the state level, and high school athletics directors from those states tell us that it usually takes just 2-6 hours of one person's time to complete each year. The extraordinary accomplishments we've achieved together over the past four decades of Title IX are a cause for celebration, but we must look forward and continue our steady march of progress. I urge my colleagues to build on our advancement and help ensure that young women in high school have equal opportunities to play sports by supporting the High School Data Transparency Act. Thank you.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Mike ``Chip'' Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka of Webster, NY. These two heroes will be forever remembered for their brave and selfless commitment to the people they called neighbors, friends and family and the place they were proud to call home. Chip and Tomasz devoted their lives to public service. For 19 years, Chip worked his way through the ranks of the Webster Police Department--from Dispatcher, to Police Officer, Investigator, Sergeant and Lieutenant. Yet when each shift at the Police Department was complete, Chip's public service continued as a volunteer firefighter with the West Webster Fire Department. For 25 years Chip served as a volunteer firefighter and rose to be Fire Chief and advisor to the Fire Department's Fire Explorer Post. It was in his role as a firefighter that Chip oversaw a young volunteer firefighter and good family friend. Tomasz Kaczowka had the passion bestowed by youth, yet a dedication to service that went far beyond his years. From serving as an emergency dispatch operator for the City of Rochester, to responding to calls as a volunteer firefighter with the West Webster Fire Department, Tomasz showed an unrivaled commitment to helping others and a selflessness that set the bar high for future generations to come. As brothers in service, Tomasz viewed Chip as a mentor; in turn, Chip tutored and protected Tomasz as if he were a son. It is in the line of public service that these two friends would be taken from this Earth. On December 24, 2012, Chip and Tomasz were responding to a fire in the early morning darkness when a gunman opened fire and took their lives. Tomasz, as was his selfless nature, was on duty that morning so that other firefighters who are fathers could be at home with their families on Christmas Eve. There is little we can say to provide comfort to the neighbors, friends and family of Chip and Tomasz. Words, no matter their eloquence, fail to heal a pain which cannot be forgotten, and a loss that cannot be undone. Together Chip and Tomasz served alongside the distinguished men and women of the West Webster Fire Department--a family they loved like their own. When Chip and Tomasz were fallen by gun fire, their fellow firefighters had to persevere through the fear and pain, and bravely put out the fires that threatened to take more lives. Now, these brave firefighters grieve for the loss of their family members, while honoring them the best way they know how--through the work they do every day. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to follow the example of the West Webster Fire Department and honor Chip and Tomasz with the actions we take. Over the last two months, more than 900 Americans, including Chip and Tomasz, have been killed with a gun. This endless string of tragedies must be no more. Now is the time for Congress to enact a comprehensive and commonsense reform to our nation's gun laws, and renew our commitment to a mental health system that has been neglected for far too long. While no legislation can bring back Chip and Tomasz, nor fill the void left at their dinner tables every night, putting an end to senseless acts of gun violence can ensure that even in death, these two brave heroes will continue to save lives. Chip and Tomasz were a shining example of what we know to be true: that in America we are united, that as long as we walk this Earth we are committed to protecting one another and in so doing we will realize the promise of a better world. In their brave and selfless actions Chip and Tomasz lived this promise to each other, and now it is our turn to do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to continue what he was saying, despite the fact I've got a greet speech here. But it's terribly important, I think, that we try to make the point one more time that process here is turned upside down and is totally meaningless. So John Boehner and Paul Ryan and Harry Reid and the Rules Committee all agree. That leaves out about 500 more people who have been sent here from the districts to represent what the people who live there think. This is not the first time this has happened. A couple of weeks ago, on the fiscal cliff, we had a thing that came up from nowhere called Plan B. John Boehner liked that. I guess Paul Ryan liked that. I'm not sure what Harry Reid thought about that. The Rules Committee thought it was okay. But the fact of the matter is that that bill was written while the Rules Committee was in session. There are 13 of us on the Rules Committee. We love the enormous power that we've got. But I don't believe any of us ever suspected that the Rules Committee was going to supersede all of the committees in the House of Representatives. There's been no committee action on any of this. In addition, I want to make the point, again, that despite what we tried to do, we said, Nobody's talked about this. There's been no discussion on this. Let's have an open rule. Let's let not just the people on our side but the people on the Republican side who've had no input here as well, let's open it up and have a real debate and see what's going on here. What is going on here? What's going on here, as my colleague points out, is a circus of dubious constitutional validity, frankly. Some people may say what they're doing is okay. Other people say, Absolutely not. We certainly should have had that decision before we got this far. What will the Senate do with it? Heavens to Betsy, I don't know. They have to have 60 votes over there before they can get to anything. It is the only legislative body in the world where 60 is the majority, not 51, as it is in every other legislature. So we've just reached, I think, a new low today. I am very depressed by the fact that the Constitution of the United States, which is very specific, that the rules of the Congress, which are extremely specific, are meaningless here. We have all these people on the committees, people with expertise, and wonderful staff. We can draw on resources from all over probably the world, not just America. But we've got plenty of them here just a block away. All the people we can talk to, all the people we can ask, What is the meaning of this? What will it do to the economy of the United States of America? Are we on the right track? Should we be doing something different? Do we need a debt limit law? What are we doing? Why can't we have those kinds of discussions in this Congress ever again? It's as though if we give them time to think about it and everybody has a chance to weigh in on it, then maybe we won't be able to move this the way we would like to and play another ``gotcha'' game, which is really what it comes down to. I don't care if The Washington Post loves it. They're probably so pleased to see the fact that people believe there's something in the fact that Harry Reid said he liked it, which is not anything that's been heard here lately, and that they thought they would like it as well. But I don't know what it is, and I don't think any of the rest of my Members did. And we certainly did not yesterday in the Rules Committee. We did not have the benefit of the knowledge of any of the other Members of the Congress or the committee process, which could have answered the questions for us that came up yesterday. In fact, all of us know where this came from. Charles Krauthammer wrote a column in The Washington Post. They maybe like that a whole lot, as well. That's where this came from. He said, Hey, there's a good idea. Instead of going to the committees of the Congress of the United States, where people of knowledge are seated, they decided let's just throw it together over the weekend at a retreat and we'll take it back next week. We're only going to work a couple of days so let's rush it through and get it through and maybe by the time we get to 3 months, something will have straightened out. Or, more likely, Mr. Speaker, in 3 months we will have thought of another way that we can kick the can down the road. Now it's important to note that this is not an extension of debt limit. It is a suspension of debt limit. That makes a difference, I think, as well, but we didn't get a chance to discuss that part of it either. We did away with all notions of regular order. I really thought the Plan B, as I'd said earlier--and I don't want anybody to miss this--that bill was being written while the Rules Committee was meeting. I know that all students of government, all the colleges and universities in this country, they're out there teaching people how America runs, how carefully and wonderfully put together it was by the Founding Fathers, how our Constitution is our guiding light. We just celebrated that. Because without doubt, the President's inaugural speech, based so closely on the Declaration of Independence and talking about the Constitution, made us understand that that is what we are here to uphold. And indeed we all held up our hands and swore we would uphold it. But when it comes to a piece of legislation like this--and this is the same as I said last night in the Rules Committee--it's just lurching around and jerking around and coming up with any kind of crazy gimmick we can think of and making smart remarks. But I will tell you that kicking the can down the road for 3 more months is not a solution. It gives us some breathing room. But I don't have any reason in the world to believe from past performance that the future is going to be any clearer for us. Until the leaders of the House can start to include the fellow Members in the majority--because they have been cut out as well--and the minority in the legislative process, the regular order will be little more than a dream. And today's bill drops the majority's insistence that increasing the debt limit be matched by cuts to Medicare or reductions to education funding. That's a step forward. But it doesn't answer our questions. My Democrat colleagues and I are eager to participate in the legislative process for which we came to Washington. And the American people are certainly eager--if not eager, maybe desperate would be a better word--to see an end to the dysfunction in this Congress. I hope that at some point the majority will realize that a completely partisan approach, which is what we've had, is a dead end. That meaningful solutions can only come from negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle who do have some good ideas. And when the majority comes to that realization, my Democrat colleagues and I will happily join in the effort to craft the serious legislative answers our country needs, our constituents deserve, and the world expects of us. The bill before us today isn't a serious solution--it is a gimmick of dubious constitutional validity. The legislation is the product of a weekend retreat, and contains all the seriousness one would expect from such origins. For the last year, the majority has alternatively taken the full faith and credit of our Nation hostage and put forth extreme proposals that do nothing to reduce our deficit in a balanced way. In the process they have done away with any notion of regular order. Just weeks ago, a so-called ``Plan B'' to the fiscal cliff was being written at the same time the Rules Committee was meeting--thus forcing us to debate a bill no one had ever seen. Now we meet to debate a bill that failed to go through a single committee hearing before landing on the Rules Committee desk yesterday afternoon. Under the process forged by the majority, the Rules Committee has become the place where legislation is unveiled by the majority and brought to the floor 24 hours later, with no input from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is about as far away from regular order as it gets. Until the leaders of the House start including their fellow members of the majority and minority in the legislative process, regular order will be little more than a dream. Mr. Speaker, today's bill drops the majority's insistence that any increase in the debt limit be matched by cuts to Medicare or reductions to education funding. This is certainly a noteworthy step forward. But kicking the can down the road for three months is not the solution that the American people deserve. If today's legislation had been crafted in the halls of Congress, with input from both sides of the aisle, I believe that we could be voting on a serious measure to prevent a debt-limit crisis and reduce our deficit starting today. My Democratic colleagues and I are eager to participate in the legislative process, and the American people are eager to see an end to the dysfunction in Congress. I hope that at some point the majority will realize that a completely partisan approach is a dead end. Meaningful solutions can only come from negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle. When the majority comes to that realization, my Democratic colleagues and I will happily join in the effort to craft the serious legislative answers that our country needs and our constituents deserve.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court. This decision is the firewall that protects women's health and the turning point that moved women's health forward. On this 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm the constitutionally protected right of every woman to safe and legal health care. Women are nurturers, but when life places a woman in the most difficult of circumstances, the choices she needs to make should be free from government interference. Over the years, I have been proud to stand with many of my colleagues as we have beaten back repeated attempts to chip away at women's rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. Over the last 2 years, we have seen the most extreme and repeated attempts to take away a woman's right to her health care. In the most recent Congress, we found ourselves defending a woman's right to access contraception. We opposed a bill that would have allowed women to die if the emergency room employee who came to her aid had a ``conscientious objection'' to performing an abortion that would save her life, without even being required to refer her elsewhere for help. We have insisted that politicians not place themselves in the operating room to judge the motives of a woman seeking a constitutionally protected medical procedure if they thought her decision may have been based on the gender or race of the fetus. Mr. Speaker, we stand on the shoulders of giants of women who went before us on this, and we take up the cudgel to keep it safe and legal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really appreciate the words of my colleague and the generosity--we were very happy last night at the Rules Committee that all members of the Rules Committee recognized that this is America in need. It's a fascinating story, and knowing Rodney Frelinghuysen, no one could be surprised about the action of his ancestor. Of course, we all apologize for what happened to you. That should not have happened to your ancestors. But throughout our modern history, the United States Congress has always responded swiftly to help the victims of natural disasters. It is today 78 days since Hurricane Sandy absolutely devastated the Northeast. We never hesitated as Americans because we know that all of us are in it together and that when any American is hurt, we all hurt, and when communities are devastated by earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes, we all feel our duty to respond. When Sandy plunged communities into darkness and left them without power or water for weeks, countless Americans volunteered their own resources to help the victims of Sandy, just as they had helped the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the victims of the Joplin tornado. Yet, no matter the generosity of our Nation's people, there is no replacement for a swift and well-organized Federal response. From military-grade trucks, helicopters, and supply planes, to Federally backed small business loans, our Federal Government is absolutely vital to rebuilding efforts. That is why we were so sad, all of us from the Northeast, that it took so long for the House to respond. While the Senate acted soon after Sandy occurred to pass a comprehensive aid package, there was nothing done in this House for months. This Congress responded to Hurricane Katrina in 10 days. As I pointed out, it's been 79 days for Sandy. When the majority did act, they passed a partial aid package that could be described as a starting point at best. And while we appreciate that we're taking action to help Sandy victims, the piecemeal approach has hurt our disaster response efforts. Without knowing whether more aid is absolutely going to come, the governors and the mayors can't sign contracts with construction companies, can't complete their plans, and cannot prioritize repair efforts and provide effective aid. It simply does not do to give out money in tranches without a guarantee of the actual money needed to be coming. In addition, the majority's demands that any Federal aid include offsets has delayed and endangered the aid from getting into the hands of those who need it. Yesterday, the Rules Committee was presented with almost 100 amendments for inclusion in today's bill . More than 40 of those 100 amendments proposed by the majority attempted to cut, hinder, and offset the aid that is contained in today's bill. Many of the amendments contained extreme and ideological proposals that should never have been considered for inclusion in a disaster aid bill. Mr. Speaker, it is now entering the cold parts of winter. There are families up and down the eastern seaboard who are still homeless, while thousands more are still working to get back on their feet, and many small businesses and restaurants have been forced to close because of the slowness of aid. Meanwhile, important institutions such as the NYU hospital in New York City struggle to repair the flood damage, and countless restaurants, as I've said, have been forced to close. After being battered and bruised by natural disaster, the victims of Sandy are now at the mercy of the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to show fundamental humanity and pass the bill today that does not include unnecessary amendments that are little more than political ransom for the majority. It's time the Chamber passes a bill that can and will be signed into law and gives the victims of Sandy the help they need to rebuild. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Ms. DeLauro.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).