Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible rule. It trivializes the Constitution, endangers Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and says to the world, The United States Congress is incapable of doing its job. The majority's risking a calamitous default on our debt, and they're doing so in the name of politics. The Republicans' ``my way or the highway'' approach is dead wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both this rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, since I have extra time and didn't give him enough in the first place, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant James T. Malloy who served as the last Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives, a man I'm proud to have called a a mentor and friend. Americans knew him as the bellowing voice we'd be waiting for at the start of the annual State of the Union address; the voice that would yell over the hundreds assembled in the House chamber, ``Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States.'' That first introduction came for President Gerald Ford in 1975 only a few weeks after his appointment. I was privileged to know the man behind the voice, the man who mentored hundreds of members of Congress and staffers who passed through his doorway and the man who was beloved by everyone in this chamber. Jimmy was incredibly helpful to me when I first came to Congress 24 years ago. He provided a good listening ear and sage advice. Put simply he was an extraordinary human being and he had no bigger fans than those of us from Western New York. As the proud son of a South Buffalo firefighter, he put Buffalo on the map on a daily basis. One of Buffalo's other proud sons, Tim Russert, described Jimmy as ``a good man, who knew everybody and was always proud of taking care of his own.'' ``I'll accept that, I like that,'' Jimmy responded when he heard the description with the humility that personified his rustbelt roots. In 1994, Jim's last duty was to introduce the new Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Since then, there's been no Doorkeeper of the House. I believe no one could possibly follow him. He has been missed in this House and will certainly be remembered fondly by everyone that knew him. He made Buffalo proud and the lives he touched richer. For that, we are all thankful.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. For example, from what we've been told by the University of California-Davis, the only doctors who really understand what they hear in a stethoscope are those who have studied music. High school music students score 102 points higher on the SATs than their peers. Students with 4 years of art in high school obtain 57 points more on their SAT. So we're making an investment in our students and our future. But they play other important roles elsewhere in the economy. Businesses are attracted to communities with a strong arts sector. And we see that everywhere there is art in existence, the presence of the arts can revitalize rural areas, inner cities and areas struggling with poverty. Cultural tourism brings in $192 billion every year to the U.S. economy. Listen to those figures. I hope to goodness everybody is as impressed as I am. Furthermore, American arts are an important export for our country, bringing in $30 billion more every year. One statistic that I found particularly telling is that in 2010, the attendance at three New York museums--the Met, MoMA, and the Guggenheim--exceeded the attendance of all of the New York professional sports teams, all of them combined, by over 300,000 visits. People are interested in arts due in part to the NEA, and they come again and again and bring their families. Along with all of this is a great intrinsic value that we know. I really must say that a lot of people think that art is not important, and they don't think about it or what it does to the human spirit. Art in so many ways tells us who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be. And if you think you're not affected by it, tell me what happens to you when you hear ``Taps,'' ``Amazing Grace,'' ``America the Beautiful,'' and the stirring that it gives in your whole person and makes you want to be better than you are. Please, please don't decimate this program in which we invest so little but get back so very much. July 25, 2011. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative, as the FY12 Interior Appropriations bill comes to the floor for consideration by the full House, we write to urge you to prevent further cuts to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The direct federal investment in the artistic capacity of our nation supports thousands of jobs, strengthens communities, improves lifelong learning, and boosts this country's international competitive advantage. Every U.S. Congressional district benefits from an NEA grant, leveraging additional support from a diverse range of private sources to combine funding from government, business, foundation, and individual donors. The NEA awarded almost 2,400 grants in those districts in FY 2010. The NEA has provided strategic leadership and investment in the arts for more than 40 years. Americans can now see professional productions and exhibitions of high quality in their own hometowns. Among the proudest accomplishments of the NEA is the growth of arts activity in areas of the nation that were previously underserved or not served at all, especially in rural and inner-city communities. Nationally, there are 668,267 businesses in the United States involved in the creation or distribution of the arts that employ 2.9 million people including visual artists, performing artists, managers, marketers, technicians, teachers, designers, carpenters, and workers in a wide variety of trades and professions. By direct grants and through allocations to each state, NEA dollars are distributed widely to strengthen the arts infrastructure and ensure broad access to the arts for communities across the country. The NEA funds school-based and community-based programs that help children and youth acquire knowledge and understanding of, and skills in, the arts. The NEA also supports educational programs for adults, collaborations between state arts agencies and state education agencies, and partnerships between arts institutions and educators. We understand fully the shared sacrifice that we all must make in order to help get our Nation's fiscal house in order. But funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was already reduced by $12.5 million in FY11, and the FY12 Interior bill currently includes an additional $20 million in funding cuts. We urge you to prevent any further reduction to the investment in our nation's arts and culture infrastructure when the Interior Appropriations bill is considered on the House floor. Sincerely, American Architectural Foundation, American Association of Museums, American Federation of Musicians, American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works, American Music Center, Americans for the Arts, Association of Art Museum Directors, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chamber Music America, Chorus America, College Art Association, Dance/USA, Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras, Literary Network, Local Learning: The National Network for Folk Arts in Education, National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture, National Alliance for Musical Theatre, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, National Council for the Traditional Arts, National Performance Network, OPERA America, Performing Arts Alliance, Society for the Arts in Healthcare, Theatre Communications Group. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The National Endowment for the Arts has a 40-year history of investing in communities across the country to expand access to the arts. The NEA has awarded 2,400 grants, spanning communities in all 435 congressional districts. The proposed cuts to the NEA would have a crippling effect on a program that has been proven to work. Often when I talk about the arts and how I feel about them, I always say how thankful I am to be able to work in an art building that is a masterpiece, but I'm going to be practical tonight. All we're interested in is money, and that's what I'm going to talk about. I hope that people will pay attention to what we get for that little bit of money. In FY 2010, the Federal Government invested $167.5 million in the NEA for the purpose of providing funding to nonprofit arts organizations. That funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity, supported 5.7 million jobs, and--listen to this one--generated to the U.S. Treasury $12.6 billion in tax revenue. That does not include the State tax revenue or the local tax revenue. So we spent $167 million and got back $12.6 billion. I defy anybody in here to tell us that we get that kind of return on any money we spend here. I wish we could find more ways to multiply our money by such a magnitude while enhancing the public good at the same time. Investment opportunities like these are few and far between, and we should be expanding our investment in such a successful program, not cutting its funding to the bone. I am the proud co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, a group that has supported the NEA for almost 30 years. The Arts Caucus is composed of 186 dedicated, bipartisan Members who are committed to the growth and the success of the arts. Why? Because the arts make a difference. The NEA reached its peak level of funding in fiscal year 1992, but it has never fully recovered from a 40 percent cut in fiscal year 1996 when, once again, people mischaracterized the work of the NEA. We have seen progress with increasing NEA funding since fiscal year 2008, but just last year, the NEA was forced to deal with a crippling cut again to its annual budget. If this year's appropriations bill takes effect, the NEA will have had its budget cut by 20 percent in just the last few months. These cuts are not sustainable and do great harm to the success of the arts sector across the country. There is widespread national support for the NEA and the arts, including from companies like Westinghouse and Bravo. Actually, what really happened so much for us that was so good was when Bravo and Westinghouse particularly said they would rather hire people who had backgrounds in art because of what they were able to do--their innovation and using both sides of the brain. Bravo was wonderful, advertising all the time how important arts are to the children in this country. The bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors made art a priority in their 10-point plan, saying Federal resources must also be invested in nonprofit arts organizations through their local arts agencies with the full funding of the Federal arts and cultural agencies. In addition, I have a letter from 26 national art organizations urging Congress to prevent any further reduction to the investment in our Nation's arts and culture infrastructure, which I would like to submit for the Record. The simple truth is that funding of the arts creates jobs. There are 756,007 arts-related businesses in the United States that employ 3 million people. In my district, there are 1,229 arts-related businesses that employ 15,864 people. And remember what's already been said so well by Mr. Simpson is that this is seed money from the National Endowment of the Arts which brings in other money--public money, private money--which is terribly important to make these programs survive. And these programs, as I've already pointed out, are an economic gold mine. They employ creative workforce, they spend money locally, they generate government revenue, and are a cornerstone of tourism and economic development. Along with creating and supporting jobs, the arts provide job skills to our Nation's youth--this is very important to understand--that are marketable to the innovative companies that drive our economy and push America to the forefront in the global marketplace. I've already mentioned Westinghouse, but there are many more. Exposure to the arts fosters learning, discovery, and achievement in our country. This is, again, simply a fact. Research has proven participation in arts education programs stimulate the creative, holistic, subjective, and intuitive portions of the human brain.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to defend our democracy from the egregious attacks on our legislative process that are abundant in the underlying legislation. The FY 2012 Interior Appropriations bill is rife with policy riders that legislate on an appropriations bill, which is in violation of Rules of the House. As a long serving Member of the House Rules Committee, I have seen a fair share of policy riders attached to legislation, but never in the history of my time here in the House have I seen such blatant disregard for the House rules and departure from regular legislative order. There are dozens of these anti-environment policy riders--or should I say these pro-industry earmarks that are included in the underlying legislation. There is an entire stand-alone bill included in this must- pass legislation--an entire bill that couldn't muster enough support to be passed into law on its own virtues--that is standing in our way from funding the government in the upcoming fiscal year. Last Thursday in the Rules Committee I offered a motion to amend the rule to strike the waiver that protects these offensive riders from points of order. If the Majority had voted in support of regular order and adopted my amendment, the Members of this House would have had the opportunity to raise points of order against these assaults on our environment here on the floor and strike them from the bill. Predictably, though, my motion failed on a party-line vote. If the Majority had followed regular and adopted my amendment to the rule in Committee, Members of the House could have been able to strike riders that: Put more toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead into our air and puts our children's health at risk; Allow more soot pollution in our air; Block EPA from moving forward with carbon pollution standards for new vehicles after 2016; Put as many as 34,000 lives at risk; Threaten the health of millions of Americans; Threaten the health of America's children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations; Block EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution from livestock production and manure management; Ban EPA from doing its job to enforce the Clean Air Act in Texas; Exempt oil companies from complying with Clean Air Act standards; Put the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk; Prevent EPA from protecting communities' clean water supplies; Allow unregulated discharge of pesticides directly into waterways; Threaten the health and environment of communities across Appalachia by blocking a number of protections against the destruction and pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining; Put thousands of people living near coal ash pools at risk of toxic disasters; Put Americans' drinking water and waterways at risk of sewage and urban runoff pollution; Block EPA from moving forward with new rules to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of power plant cooling water intake structures; Block protections for more than 1 million acres of land around the Grand Canyon; Put public lands at risk of destruction; Put the Delaware Water Gap and parts of the Appalachian Trail at risk of development; and Put endangered species at risk of harmful pesticides. So here we are tonight, fighting for our fellow citizens' right to clean air and clean drinking water with one of the few tools we have left as the minority in the House--our voices and the privilege to represent our constituents on the House floor. We are fighting to uphold decades of successful, bipartisan environmental laws that have protected our environment and improved our public health. Each policy rider goes against our nation's values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through shared sacrifice and working together. When these policy riders are all combined, they place a suffocating burden on the American people while rewarding special interests and the lobbyists who walk these halls. Under this bill, the nation's clean air protections would be devastated, leaving our children exposed to life-threatening pollution. This bill would cause hundreds of thousands more Americans to suffer from the dangerous and deadly impacts of air pollution. The bill's policy riders prevent the EPA from doing its job to protect public health and won't cut one dime from the deficit. The EPA has been actively engaged in helping clean up the air in Tonawanda, New York, which I proudly represent, and I stand by the agency's ability to continue doing the good work to improve the quality of life for those residents. Rolling back the Clean Air Act, as is proposed under this legislation, will lead to more air pollution, more hospital visits and more deaths. We must support the Clean Air Act so that all Americans can breathe easier. I will mention one more of these abhorrent policy riders that should be struck from the bill. There is a rider in this legislation that will effectively open up a million acres of national forest and other public land around Grand Canyon National Park to new uranium mining claims. Democrats have concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to mention the spectacle of auctioning off a national treasure with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities, including Russia's state atomic energy corporation and South Korea's state-owned utility. America is not for sale, Mr. Chair, even if Republicans would like us to believe otherwise. Mr. Chair, I stand firmly in opposition to the Majority's daily attempts to whittle away at the rules of the House. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Majority's protection of policy riders that endanger our public health and environment in favor of private interests, and to oppose the underlying legislation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in these tough times we must make choices that reflect our values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through shared sacrifice and working together. Unfortunately, today we consider yet another bill that is devoid of these values. Once again, today's legislation places the burden on the American people while rewarding the special interests and the lobbyists who walk these halls. One of the many riders inserted into the bill will effectively open up a million acres of national forest and other public land around the Grand Canyon National Park because people want to mine uranium there. Democrats have great concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to mention the spectacle that shows us auctioning off a national treasure with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities. Who is it that wants to drill for uranium and mine for uranium? Russia, their state atomic energy corporation, and South Korea's state- owned utility. In other words, we will give up the Grand Canyon and potable water, likely, to benefit the Russians and South Koreans. And any mining that is included in this bill comes under a bill that was signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. We have not raised royalties on anything that anybody takes from us, including foreign entities as they come here to mine our resources. At the same time, the majority proposes crippling cuts to the EPA that will cut programs that protect our air and water. There are few more important responsibilities in making sure when we go to the kitchen sink that the water coming out is safe. We know a human being may live as long as he or she may without food--four days without water. If our Nation can't protect these most basic of our life necessities, we have indeed fallen far. Today's bill would also prohibit the use of government moneys to add animals to the Endangered Species List but allows the use of government money to take species off the same list. This policy change threatens the Endangered Species Act and the environmental protections that come with it. The misguided priorities in this bill will directly impact my district, and my colleague is right about that, and the citizens I am elected to represent. But not just them. Twenty percent of the freshwater on this planet resides in the Great Lakes. Most of us who live around the Great Lakes believe it is our responsibility to take care of them and to pass it on to future generations. But in recent years, the Great Lakes have been damaged by pollution and invasive species carried on to our water by foreign vessels. We have allowed that. New York, of course, being closest to the Atlantic Ocean and the St. Lawrence Seaway, has enacted stronger laws against dumping ballast, and this bill punishes us for doing that. The invasive species are not damaging just an ecosystem but a way of life for the Great Lakes communities that line the shore, as well as endangering our freshwater. The EPA has come to the aid of these communities by dedicating funding to restore the Great Lakes. But today's bill would bar New York State from receiving any restoration funding from the EPA and leave the Great Lakes to be overrun by private polluters and the invasive species they have delivered from overseas. Any bill that stands up for foreign shipping magnates but won't provide a cent to help Americans should never see the light of day and will never receive my vote. Today's legislation also harms the arts. If today's bill takes effect, the National Endowment for the Arts will have lost 20 percent of its funding in 2 years. Now, these cuts target a program that works. In fiscal year 2010, we invested $167.5 million into the NEA--remember that number, $167.5--for the purpose of providing funding to non-profit arts organizations. The funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity, supported 5.7 million jobs, and, for the $167 million, generated back $12.6 billion in tax revenue to the United States Treasury. And that does not count what happens to help improvements to States' treasuries and local treasuries. Today's legislation targets a program proven to create jobs and contribute to the economic and the cultural well-being of our Nation. You would think that people who are elected to the Congress of the United States would really want a program like that not only to survive but to grow. But, no, here they are cutting the budget once again. Our country is blessed with stunning natural beauty and a wealth of natural resources that are unparalleled anywhere in the world. But in one final swipe at our national interest, today's bill cuts the budget for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by a whopping 78 percent. The Land and Water Conservation Fund ensures that our national treasures will be here for our children and our grandchildren, a mission that apparently deserves 78 percent less money than it did the year before. A cut like that says all you need to know about the priorities of the majority and the special interests that are being served. If getting our fiscal house in order is truly about shared sacrifices, this bill does not reflect it. We could have started by asking oil and gas companies to pay their fair share after profiting so richly from resources found on American soil. Instead, the majority rejected an amendment that would have asked oil and gas companies to pay a little more so the Nation can fund programs to clean up the most polluted lands in our country. The majority will not even allow this amendment to receive a vote on the floor. Today's bill asks nothing of the companies that are making record profits. Instead, cuts to programs and services and the agencies that serve the American people and protect our environment for future generations. Mr. Speaker, a bill like this does not reflect our values. It is not up to the standards the American people have come to expect and deserve. It puts special interests over our general welfare, and it fails totally to invest in our future. We can and we must do better. I am pleased to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York, the ranking Democrat on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond for a minute before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I have, from the Las Vegas Sun of July 22, an article saying that the previous allowing of uranium mining has caused great damage. This watershed gives water to 26 million people and provides 90 percent of the water used in southern Nevada. Let me quote from the paper: ``As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by the uranium mines''--which the gentleman talked about has not hurt anybody at all-- ``that sit in the watershed, some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed. The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 claims in the area. Adding the potential for more uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense. Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of people's drinking water at risk.'' I will put that in the Record, if I may, and a New York Times editorial of June 28, ``Mining and the Canyon.'' Absolute harm is being done. [From the Las Vegas Sun, June 22, 2011] Republicans Should Quit Trying to Roll Back Uranium Mining Moratorium Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in June issued a six-month moratorium on new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon. The ban provides time for the government to complete a study of the effects of uranium mining in the area. A final report is due this fall, and Salazar said the department is considering banning new mining claims in the area for the next 20 years. The issue is important. Uranium mining threatens not only the beauty and ecosystem of the Grand Canyon, but it also poses a threat to the Colorado River, which is a key source of water for about 26 million people in Arizona, Nevada and California. The Colorado River, which forms Lake Mead, provides 90 percent of the water used in Southern Nevada. Salazar cited a concern for water quality in announcing the moratorium extension because the 1 million acres are in the Colorado River watershed. Water officials worry that more uranium mines could result in radioactive material streaming into the river. The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River need to be protected. The moratorium on new claims was put in place because of an incredible spike in mining interest in the area under the George W. Bush administration. The Grand Canyon doesn't need to see any more mining around it. Environmental groups and Colorado River water users cheered Salazar's decision, but in Congress, Salazar's announcement was targeted by some Republicans who claimed it was a bad policy. In a news release issued this month, Rep. Jeff Flake, R- Ariz., boasted about inserting a provision to block the administration from enforcing the moratorium in the spending bill that covers the Interior Department. The bill passed the House Appropriations Committee this month. Flake claimed that mining ``can create jobs and stimulate the economy in Northern Arizona.'' But Flake's argument is shameless. He is using the nation's poor economy as an excuse to force a dangerous policy on the country. Flake's argument is part of the larger Republican attempt to roll back any sort of regulation. In passing the interior spending bill from his committee, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers complained about what he called the administration's ``widespread regulatory overreach'' and pledged to cut it. But when it comes to clean water, Congress shouldn't be cutting back. People need to be confident their water supply is protected, and if the Republican plan moves forward, there will be serious doubt. As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by uranium mines and tailing piles that sit in the watershed, some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed. The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 hard-rock mining claims in the area. Adding the potential for more uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense. Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of people's drinking water at risk.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you for that, and I am willing to close. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this: I think we have demonstrated that this bill contains an astonishing array of devastating cuts and special interest riders that jeopardize the water we drink, the air we breathe, and our country's national heritage. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts. We're always being told what's junk science in here, but I will tell you right now, I really think that the science is very strong, and thank goodness there's a moratorium on this mining around the Grand Canyon. I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who will make it very clear.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend our U.S. Women's Soccer Team in their thrilling race to the World Cup Final. Although it was ultimately Japan who captured the World Cup Trophy, as a country we could not be more proud of our team, their tremendous effort throughout the Cup, and their grace in accepting defeat. Regardless of the outcome, there is much to be said about how their playing inspired a country. The attention of the world has turned to women's sports, and these women are serving as positive role models to young girls across the globe. It has been a long twelve years since the heroics of the victorious US Women's National Team in the 1999 World Cup, and I want to congratulate the 2011 team for exemplifying champions, win or lose. The image of Brandi Chastain, fists clenched, basking in the glory of a World Cup victory that captivated our spirits all those years ago still hangs on the wall of my office. As a representative from western New York, I especially want to congratulate the amazing performance of Abby Wambach, a native of my hometown: Rochester, New York. She scored her 100th career international goal in Rochester and she carries with her the support of Rochesterians wherever she goes. She is a four-time winner of the U.S. Soccer Athlete of the Year award, and is currently the fourth all-time leading scorer in international soccer history. She scored the gold- medal-winning goal in the 2004 Olympics and saved the quarterfinal match in this year's cup against Brazil when she scored a gut-wrenching equalizer off her head in the final moments. In the semi final victory over France, she tallied two more scores, including the go-ahead goal against France in the 79th minute. Of the two amazing goals scored by the U.S. in the finals, Abby scored the go-ahead header in extra time, and Alex Morgan, a player for the Western New York Flash, scored the other. Alex, a 22-year-old phenom, has impressed the world with her quick feet and prominence as a striker, and she is being heralded as the future star of U.S. women's soccer. The entire Upstate New York area is beaming with pride and admiration of these two players as they represented our area so well. The fervor and enthusiasm for our team was encapsulated in the hero's welcome Abby received when she returned to Rochester, with several of her teammates in tow. It was ``Abby Wambach Day'' in Rochester, and she received a key to the city in commendation of her awe-inspiring talents. The regularly scheduled game between magicJack of Boca Raton, FL and the Western New York Flash saw a sellout crowd of 15,404, a record for the 3-year-old league. It is clear that we have all been infused with a love of the game and a respect for our players, and I hope that passion never dies. The success of the U.S. Women's National Team is of particular importance because it shows young women and girls that like men, they too can earn the respect and admiration of the world through hard work, teamwork, and perseverance on the athletic field. Since 2004, I've sponsored legislation in the House that would help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby encourage greater participation of both girls and boys in athletics. H.R. 458, the High School Athletics Accountability 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. Without information about how athletic opportunities and benefits are being allocated at the high school level, female students may be deprived of their chance to participate in athletics. And participation in sports has a multitude of positive effects on young women and girls, both physically and socially. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education through athletic scholarships. I've met with so many Olympic gold medalists that told me without Title IX, which gave them access to athletic scholarships; they never would have had the chance to go to college. While we have made significant strides towards equity in athletics-- since the 1972 enactment of Title IX the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 500 percent while the number of high school girls competing in sports increased by over 1,000 percent-- we must continue to monitor our progress and ensure that our nation's young women have the rights and opportunities they deserve. This year's Women's World Cup was thrilling and is indicative of the amazing talent of our U.S. Women's National Team. The success of our team has captivated men, women and children who nervously watched as the squad overcame Brazil in the last minute to triumph in penalty kicks, and then swept past France with their athleticism shining as they moved onto the final. I proudly cheered for them as they faced Japan on Sunday in the final, and was filled with admiration for their relentlessness on the field. Their accomplishments as a team are inspiring: two Women's World Cups, three Olympic Gold Medals, and eight Algarve Cups, earning them a commendation as one of the finest teams in the world. I must also congratulate Japan for their performance and sportsmanship in a game that was watched by millions around the globe, and that kept everyone on the edge of their seats into the final penalty kicks. Though the U.S. team was ultimately unsuccessful in a heartbreaking 3-1 penalty shootout, I cannot imagine a more deserving adversary in Japan, who so recently suffered a devastating earthquake and tsunami. I hope this victory will bring joy to their people, and I know that the Japanese citizens are as proud of their team as we are of ours. Abby and her teammates have been role models for all with their poise both on and off the field and their dedication to the sport. I could not be more proud of her and her teammates as role models for young women interested in sports. I encourage children of all ages to be as inspired by the success of the U.S. Women's National team as I am, and to get involved with sports so that everyone can reap the benefits of this highly beneficial activity. Best of luck to the U.S. Women's National Team in the future; I know this is not the last time we will be cheering for them in the World Cup Finals. With the London 2012 Olympic Games on the horizon, we won't have to wait long to see them back in action on the world stage. Go USA!

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a reflection of the Nation's values. It embodies the ideals of fairness, accountability, and equality, values that help us define who we are as a people. Just as importantly, the CFPB brings accountability and transparency to the financial sector and reduces the risk that consumers will be sold financial products they don't understand and can't afford to buy. The CFPB is already hard at work. This agency has started by proposing a simplified disclosure of mortgages so the consumers can read them--isn't that refreshing?--in plain language, the terms of an agreement, before signing on the dotted line. Despite this valuable start, today's bill is designed to effectively neuter the agency before it can fully begin to serve the middle class. In so doing, this bill is a giveaway to special interests in the financial sector that fear they will finally be held accountable by the law. Apparently unchastened by the economic crisis they plunged us into, financial firms continue to take advantage of unknowing consumers. Just this past year, a robo-signing scandal led to banks foreclosing on many families who had done absolutely nothing wrong. These firms will not stop trying to take advantage of people unless someone forces them to stop. Despite all this, the majority proposes that we weaken the very agency designed to protect consumers against illegal practices and unfair play. The CFPB was launched thanks to the great work of Professor Elizabeth Warren and the team of professionals that she has assembled to launch the agency. Their work has been tireless and invaluable. Professor Warren acutely understands the struggles of American families and her words summarize nicely the choice Members of Congress are being asked to make today. While speaking about the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, Professor Warren said, ``I remain hopeful that those who want to cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember the financial crisis--and the recession and job losses that it sparked-- began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those Senators and Congressmen next go home they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, and about learning the true cost of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset. ``I hope they will ask the people in their district if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear, or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law.'' Members of this House would do well to remember her words. Will we vote today to protect the middle class and the millions of consumers struggling to make ends meet, or will this body stand with financial lobbyists and leave the middle class to go it alone? In strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to take a vote that reflects our values and vote against this rule we're considering today and against the underlying bill. Please let's stand up for the American families and help the helpless people who are simply struggling to get by despite what we have done for them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.