Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many speakers remain on his side.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this rule and this bill will do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency designed to help consumers who are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not even up and running yet. There is no reason to think it won't work exactly as intended. Is that what the majority is afraid of? Are they afraid that CFPB will make prices clear? that they will make terms and conditions clear? that they will ensure that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant and understandable by the consumer and the lender? Are they worried about letting consumers shop for the best product at the lowest price? to help consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction? that a cop on the beat will make sure the largest financial institutions in this country are following the law? If that's what they're afraid of, then we don't want to join them, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill so that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do its job without Congress getting in the way. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would eliminate a tax loophole that puts at risk telecommunications services and workers in states across the country. The bill seeks to limit ``Reverse Morris Trust'' (RMT) transactions, a tax avoidance loophole that continues to be utilized by companies, including publicly regulated utility companies. RMT transactions regularly allow companies to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes while having adverse consequences for consumers, workers and the Federal Treasury. Under an RMT, a parent company can spin off a subsidiary that merges into an unrelated company tax free if the shareholders of the parent company control more than 50 percent of the voting rights and economic value of the resulting merged company. The result deprives the federal treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars. And all too frequently, the new entity incurs too much debt and lacks the capital needed to maintain services and perform system upgrades that it depends on to provide quality services to its customers and create good paying jobs. The legislation I am introducing would restrict the benefits of the RMT transaction by removing an incentive for companies to sell off assets tax free by creating a spinoff company that assumes massive amounts of debt. The bill would help protect the interests of consumers and workers, while preventing this unintended loophole from resulting in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal revenues at a time when our federal deficit is soaring. Based on analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation in the 111th Congress, closing the RMT loophole would raise approximately $250 million over 10 years. One recent RMT transaction provides a prime example of the dangers of this loophole. Despite objections from the public and Congressional members, Verizon utilized the RMT to avoid taxes on a similar transaction with FairPoint Communications in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont almost four years ago. As predicted, the result was unprecedented consumer complaints lodged with state regulators who were unable to reverse the negative consequences. On October 26, 2009, FairPoint declared bankruptcy, leaving the future of telephone service across all three states uncertain, and potentially putting at risk the compensation and benefits of thousands of employees. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to close this loophole that cheats the American public and helps large companies evade paying taxes by saddling smaller ones with debt.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I am opposed to the misguided cuts to high-speed rail funding in this bill that will eliminate thousands of jobs, halt a large number of rail projects across the country--and we are way behind every other nation almost, industrialized nations, anyway--and hurt local and State economies. This is the latest in the majority's agenda that can best be described as penny-wise and pound-foolish. In their Pledge to America, the majority made a promise to the American people. ``We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain,'' they declared. Sadly, that's what they're doing today. Using the tragedy of natural disasters in America's heartland as a political tool to try to eliminate a job creation program, one of the very few we have, is just wrong. Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic investment are at stake, and yet this fight brought to us today is little more than an unnecessary ideological battle. The high-speed and intercity passenger rail program is critical to our country's competitiveness. It puts Americans back to work, revitalizes our construction and manufacturing sectors, boosts the domestic economy, and helps end U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It is both unwise and ineffective to cut important funding from one project in order to pay for disaster relief. We are a Nation that should be able to both build for the future--in fact we must--and provide for our fellow citizens in need today. High-speed rail creates jobs. Every $1 billion of high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail construction funding supports 24,000 jobs. High-speed rail creates short-term jobs in construction, long-term jobs in ongoing maintenance and operation, and indirect jobs by providing regions with access to a larger labor pool and driving economic development. In my home State of New York, the United States Conference of Mayors estimates at least 21,000 new jobs and $1.1 billion in new wages with the construction of high-speed rail along the Empire Corridor from Buffalo to Albany. High-speed rail also creates the economic corridors of the future. A high-speed rail line in western New York as currently planned would reduce travel time significantly and expand the western New York labor market to 955,562 workers. This would make us the 26th largest metro area in the Nation, and that means new businesses will be drawn to the area as we connect our cities to Montreal, Toronto, New York City and the rest of the eastern seaboard; and for the first time in many areas, we may even be able to go west. In New York, high-speed rail will be our next Erie Canal. Nationally, it is rightfully being compared to our national highway system. Both spurred local development and brought millions of jobs to our State and the Nation. At this point in time, we must not let this opportunity slip away. What's more, rescinding funds for high-speed rail now, after $5.68 billion have already been obligated by the Federal Railroad Administration, will negate the unprecedented work already being done by the FRA and its partners. FRA, the States, Amtrak, and infrastructure-owning railroads have made significant progress in reaching service outcome agreements to ensure that intended project benefits are realized, while protecting the public's investment and the railroads' operating interests. The attempt to rescind this money is nothing but an opportunistic attempt to gain politically from a human tragedy. The flooding that has occurred in our Nation's heartland is being used as an excuse to eliminate an investment in our transportation network of the future. This is morally reprehensible and economically irresponsible. If we are to be a competitive global economy in the years to come, we must dedicate ourselves to building the infrastructure that we will need to compete. To rescind these funds now after so much progress has been made and at a time when investments in our own infrastructure and our country are so sorely needed is quite simply an act of foolishness. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act and stand in strong opposition to the underlying bill. H.R. 2018 is yet another attempt to dismantle our nation's environmental protections and further jeopardize the public health and safety of our citizens. Simply put, H.R. 2018 would return the U.S. to a structure of Clean Water laws that existed before enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1972 by undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to assure state water quality standards. Before the Clean Water Act of 1972, 70 percent of our nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. This amendment, offered by my colleague from Virginia, would exempt states that receive federal restoration funding from H.R. 2018. It understands that ongoing cooperation among federal, state and local governments is necessary to ensure that basic water quality standards are upheld across the United States, regardless of which state you reside in. This amendment also recognizes that our Federal Government has spent billions of dollars on regional collaborative efforts among states to repair and restore our nation's valuable waterways, and that this bill, H.R. 2018, threatens to nullify these efforts and write off valuable investment already undertaken by effectively giving any one state veto authority over a region's restoration efforts. As a co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, a bipartisan working group of members from eight states surrounding the Great Lakes, I understand how critical it is for our states to work together to save our nation's valuable waterways and that this cooperation must be guided by the underlying premise that water does not stop when it reaches the state line. The Great Lakes have received over $800 million in federal funding over the last two years alone to undertake such restoration efforts. We must not let these efforts and our valuable nation resources go to waste. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose H.R. 2018.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect the Clean Water Act and in support of the amendment offered by Representatives Markey (MA), DeFazio (OR), Capps (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Capuano (MA), Napolitano (CA) and Hirono (HI). Since the passage of the Clean Water Act our waterways have gotten cleaner and our public health has improved. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the United States has achieved significant gains in public health, a cleaner environment, and a stronger more sustainable economy. The Clean Water Act, CWA, is one of our nation's greatest environmental laws, safeguarding our rivers, lakes, and streams and protecting the health and safety of our drinking water. The CWA was enacted as a bipartisan effort almost a half century ago, coming on the heels of several rivers catching on fire, including the Cuayahoga River in 1969, and the decimation of Lake Erie's fisheries due to pollution. Under the current Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has taken significant actions to improve the safety of our drinking water, and continues to protect of our nation's waterways. There is no right more basic than the right to safe drinking water, and that right depends on unpolluted source waters. The Clean Water Act protects our water from heavy metals such as arsenic and lead, dangerous pathogens like E. coli, and other toxins. Clean drinking water is basic to our very survival. The amendment before us would ensure that if this bill, H.R. 2018, ever made it into law, it would not endanger the safety protections provided under the Clean Water Act for waters that provide flood protection for communities, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provide benefits to the economy, or are coastal recreational waters. We cannot sacrifice our waterways for the interests of big polluters. The nation's fish and wildlife habitats and recreational waters are fruitful economic drivers for local communities, especially in the area I proudly represent on Lake Ontario. According to a recent study, 900,000 recreational boaters using Great Lakes harbors spend approximately $2.35 billion annually on boating trips and another $1.4 billion to purchase and maintain their watercraft. This supports 60,000 jobs in the region and generates $1.7 billion in annual personal income. The CWA has served an integral part in cleaning up and maintaining the health of our waters, and therefore boosting the health of our local economies. A strong Clean Water Act has moved us beyond the days of rivers on fire. However, there is still more to be done. State and EPA data reveal that 44 percent of assessed river and stream miles and 64 percent of assessed lake acres do not meet relevant water quality standards. Now is the time to support the efforts of the EPA as the agency works to ensure we all have access to clean water. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment so that our environment and local economies remain protected under the Clean Water Act. We must reject any effort to repeal our valuable protections, and recommit our pledge to the American people to work toward a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous future.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern that justices of the Supreme Court are not required to explain their decisions to recuse--or not recuse themselves in a particular case before the Court, and that those decisions are final and unreviewable. Recusal decisions, left to each individual justice to make on his or her own and with no opportunity for review, require that each justice be a judge in their own case. Questions of impartiality erode the integrity of the Court and threaten to undermine public trust in our judicial system. The recusal process for Supreme Court justices must be reformed to provide an open and reviewable process. A Supreme Court Justice's Recusal Decisions Should Be Transparent and Reviewable (By the Alliance for Justice) The recusal process for Supreme Court justices needs transparency and accountability. Although there is a statute governing recusal--28 U.S.C. Sec. 4551--that applies to Supreme Court justices, the statute does not require individual justices to explain their recusal decisions, and those decisions are final and unreviewable. This system violates the basic maxim that no one should be a judge in his own case. It also ignores the fact that the standard to be applied in recusal cases is the appearance of bias, which by necessity depends on the views of others, and not the justice's own views of his or her impartiality. Exacerbating this lack of accountability is a lack of transparency, as justices are not required to issue a written opinion explaining a recusal decision. That's why over 100 law professors recently sent a letter calling on Congress to hold hearings and implement legislation to increase the transparency and accountability of recusal decisions. A recent Supreme Court case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, Inc. provides an object lesson in the hazards of a self- policing judiciary, in which individual judges determine whether or not their impartiality can reasonably be questioned. In Caperton, West Virginia Justice Brent D. Benjamin received substantial campaign contributions made directly or indirectly from the president of a company with an outstanding $50 million judgment against it on appeal before the judge. Justice Benjamin denied three motions to recuse himself, and then voted in the 3-2 majority to reverse the judgment against the company. A public opinion poll indicated that 67% of West Virginians doubted Justice Benjamin would be fair and impartial. The Supreme Court reversed Justice Benjamin's decisions not to recuse himself on the basis that the risk of actual bias was so high that it violated petitioners' constitutional due process rights. It did not matter what Justice Benjamin thought of his own potential for bias, the key was whether the appearance of impartiality was compromised, the Court held. The Court emphasized the need for an objective test to evaluate whether an interest rises to such a degree that the average judge might become biased, rather than relying on a judge's self-evaluation of actual bias. ``The difficulties of inquiring into actual bias and the fact that the inquiry is often a private one, simply underscore the need for objective rules,'' the Court added. The Court held that the need for an independent inquiry is particularly important ``where, as here, there is no procedure for judicial factfinding and the sole trier of fact is the one accused of bias.'' The opacity and lack of accountability of the recusal process erodes public confidence in the integrity of the Court and the sense that justice is being administered fairly. For example: In 2003, a prominent legal ethicist argued that Justice Breyer should have recused from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Walsh, in which an association of drug manufacturers, including three in which Justice Breyer held stock, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of state regulations aimed at keeping drug costs down for consumers. Justice Breyer chose not to recuse himself, despite his potential financial conflict of interest. In 2004, just weeks after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a public records case brought by the Sierra Club against then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Justice Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney and accepted a free ride on the Vice President's plane. Despite widespread public criticism questioning his appearance of bias in the case, Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself. In a memorandum opinion denying the Sierra Club's motion to recuse, Justice Scalia wrote that he ``would have been pleased to demonstrate [his] integrity'' by disqualifying himself from the case, but nonetheless decided there was no basis for recusal. He then cast his vote in support of Vice President Cheney's position. This year, the advocacy organization Common Cause filed a petition with the Department of Justice, requesting that it file a Rule 60(b) motion seeking the invalidation of last year's Citizens United v. FEC ruling on the basis that Justices Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves. The petition alleged the impartiality of both justices could reasonably be questioned under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) due to their alleged attendance at a closed-door retreat hosted by Koch Industries, a politically active corporation that supported and has benefited from Citizen United's dismantling of campaign finance laws. Common Cause also alleges that Justice Thomas had an obligation to recuse himself under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b), due to a financial conflict of interest created by his wife's employment at a conservative political organization that stood to benefit from unrestricted corporate donations made possible by Citizens United. Also this year, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and 73 other members of the House of Representatives have asked Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any upcoming review of the Affordable Care Act due to his wife's ties to organizations lobbying to repeal the Act. Rep. Weiner asserts that IRS records show that between 2003 and 2007, Virginia (``Ginni'') Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which at the time opposed health care reform. He adds that in 2009, Ms. Thomas became the CEO of a nonprofit, Liberty Central, which also opposed health care reform, and that earlier this year, Ms. Thomas announced that she had formed a lobbying firm, ``Liberty Consulting,'' to advance various Tea Party legislative initiatives, including the repeal or nullification of the Affordable Care Act. Rep. Weiner alleges that these connections give rise to an appearance of partiality, and a potential financial conflict of interest that require Justice Thomas to recuse himself, if the Affordable Care Act reaches the Court. While a judge's spouse is not prohibited from engaging in political activities, Judicial Conference Advisory Opinions interpreting the Code of Conduct make clear that a spouse's political activities may increase the likelihood that a judge must recuse from a particular case. These examples highlight the need for transparency and review of recusal issues that arise for Supreme Court justices. The impartiality of specific justices, and thereby the integrity of the Court, has come under question because the recusal statute fails to provide an open and reviewable process. This needs to change, either through Congressional legislation, or by the Court itself adopting new recusal policies.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over ethically questionable conduct of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that threatens to undermine public trust in our judicial system. Justice Thomas has repeatedly engaged in questionable actions and hidden them from public view. Just this weekend, the New York Times revealed troubling details about favors Justice Thomas has received from a millionaire real estate magnate named Harlan Crow. Despite the revelations, Justice Thomas refuses to provide details about his relationship with Mr. Crow. The report from the New York Times is the latest in a long line of troubling actions taken by Justice Thomas, yet he refuses to share the necessary information to ensure that his service on the bench is fair and free from conflict of interest. No one should be above the law, especially those chosen to uphold it. [From the New York Times, June 18, 2011] Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics Pin Point, GA.--Clarence Thomas was here promoting his memoir a few years ago when he bumped into Algernon Varn, whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed Justice Thomas's mother as a crab picker. Mr. Varn lived at the old cannery site, a collection of crumbling buildings on a salt marsh just down the road from a sign heralding this remote coastal community outside Savannah as Justice Thomas's birthplace. The justice asked about plans for the property, and Mr. Varn said he hoped it could be preserved. ``And Clarence said, `Well, I've got a friend I'm going to put you in touch with,' '' Mr. Varn recalled, adding that he was later told by others not to identify the friend. The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to conservative causes. Mr. Crow stepped in to finance the multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery, featuring a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point that has become a pet project of Justice Thomas's. The project throws a spotlight on an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship that appears to be markedly different from those of other justices on the nation's highest court. The two men met in the mid-1990s, a few years after Justice Thomas joined the court. Since then, Mr. Crow has done many favors for the justice and his wife, Virginia, helping finance a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass and reportedly providing $500,000 for Ms. Thomas to start a Tea Party-related group. They have also spent time together at gatherings of prominent Republicans and businesspeople at Mr. Crow's Adirondacks estate and his camp in East Texas. In several instances, news reports of Mr. Crow's largess provoked controversy and questions, adding fuel to a rising debate about Supreme Court ethics. But Mr. Crow's financing of the museum, his largest such act of generosity, previously unreported, raises the sharpest questions yet--both about Justice Thomas's extrajudicial activities and about the extent to which the justices should remain exempt from the code of conduct for federal judges. Although the Supreme Court is not bound by the code, justices have said they adhere to it. Legal ethicists differed on whether Justice Thomas's dealings with Mr. Crow pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one facet of the relationship was both unusual and important in weighing any ethical implications: Justice Thomas's role in Mr. Crow's donation for the museum. The code says judges ``should not personally participate'' in raising money for charitable endeavors, out of concern that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled to favorable treatment from the judge. In addition, judges are not even supposed to know who donates to projects honoring them. While the nonprofit Pin Point museum is not intended to honor Justice Thomas, people involved in the project said his role in the community's history would inevitably be part of it, and he participated in a documentary film that is to accompany the exhibits. Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor who has called for stricter ethics rules for Supreme Court justices, said Justice Thomas ``should not be directly involved in fund-raising activities, no matter how worthy they are or whether he's being centrally honored by the museum.'' On the other hand, the restriction on fund-raising is primarily meant to deter judges from using their position to pressure donors, as opposed to relying on ``a rich friend'' like Mr. Crow, said Ronald D. Rotunda, who teaches legal ethics at Chapman University in California. ``I don't think I could say it's unethical,'' he said. ``It's just a very peculiar situation.'' Justice Thomas, through a Supreme Court spokeswoman, declined to respond to a detailed set of questions submitted by The New York Times. Mr. Crow also would not comment. Supreme Court ethics have been under increasing scrutiny, largely because of the activities of Justice Thomas and Ms. Thomas, whose group, Liberty Central, opposed President Obama's health care overhaul--an issue likely to wind up before the court. Mr. Crow's donation to Liberty Central was reported by Politico. In January, the liberal advocacy organization Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from last year's Citizens United campaign finance case because they had attended a political retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers, who support groups that stood to benefit from the court's decision. A month later, more than 100 law professors asked Congress to extend to Supreme Court justices the ethics code that applies to other federal judges, and a bill addressing the issue was introduced. It is not unusual for justices to accept gifts or take part in outside activities, some with political overtones. Justice Stephen G. Breyer has attended Renaissance Weekend, a retreat for politicians, artists and media personalities that is a favorite of Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in a symposium sponsored by the National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a philanthropic foundation once tried to give her a $100,000 achievement award. She instructed that the money be given to charity. But in the case of Justice Thomas and his dealings with Mr. Crow, the ethical complications appear more complex. conservative ties Mr. Crow, 61, manages the real estate and investment businesses founded by his late father, Trammell Crow, once the largest landlord in the United States. The Crow family portfolio is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and includes investments in hotels, medical facilities, public equities and hedge funds. A friend of the Bush family, Mr. Crow is a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation and has donated close to $5 million to Republican campaigns and conservative groups. Among his contributions were $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group formed to attack the Vietnam War record of Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, and $500,000 to an organization that ran advertisements urging the confirmation of President George W. Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court. Mr. Crow has not personally been a party to Supreme Court litigation, but his companies have been involved in federal court cases, including four that went to the appellate level. And he has served on the boards of two conservative organizations involved in filing supporting briefs in cases before the Supreme Court. One of them, the American Enterprise Institute, with Mr. Crow as a trustee, gave Justice Thomas a bust of Lincoln valued at $15,000 and praised his jurisprudence at an awards gala in 2001. The institute's Project on Fair Representation later filed briefs in several cases, and in 2006 the project brought a lawsuit challenging federal voting rights laws, a case in which Justice Thomas filed a lone dissent, embracing the project's arguments. The project director, an institute fellow named Edward Blum, said the institute supported his research but did not finance the brief filings or the Texas suit, which was litigated pro bono by a former clerk of Justice Thomas's. ``When it came time to file a lawsuit,'' he said, ``A.E.I. had no role in doing that.'' coming up with a plan In addition to his interest in politics and policy, Mr. Crow is well known for his keen devotion to history. A backyard garden at his $24 million Dallas residence is dominated by old statues of dictators he has collected from fallen regimes, including Lenin and Stalin. His private library is packed with 8,000 rare books and artifacts, including a Senate roll call sheet from Justice Thomas's confirmation and a ``thank you'' letter from the justice, according to local news reports. There are a number of reasons Justice Thomas might be thankful to Mr. Crow. In addition to giving him the Douglass Bible, valued 10 years ago at $19,000, Mr. Crow has hosted the justice aboard his private jet and his 161-foot yacht, at the exclusive Bohemian Grove retreat in California and at his grand Adirondacks summer estate called Topridge, a 105-acre spread that once belonged to Marjorie Merriweather Post, the cereal heiress. Christopher Shaw, a folk singer who said he had been invited several times to perform at Topridge, recalled seeing Justice Thomas and his family ``on one or two occasions.'' They were among about two dozen guests who included other prominent Republicans--last summer, the younger Mr. Bush stopped by. ``There would be guys puffing on cigars,'' Mr. Shaw said. ``Clarence just kind of melted in with everyone else. We got introduced at dinner. He sat at Harlan's table.'' Mr. Crow's $175,000 donation to the library in Savannah in 2001 started out anonymous, but it was eventually made public amid opposition to the project by some local black leaders who did not like Justice Thomas's politics. Similarly, Mr. Crow sought to keep his role in the museum quiet. At first glance the Pin Point Heritage Museum, scheduled to open this fall, would seem an unlikely catalyst for an ethical quandary. That Pin Point's history is worthy of preservation is not in dispute. Part of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor designated by Congress, it is representative of tight-knit Southern coastal settlements that trace their roots to freed slaves and were often based around fishing. In Pin Point, the Varn crab and oyster cannery, founded in the 1920s, was a primary source of jobs until it closed in 1985. Mr. Varn and his wife, Sharon, said they had long hoped the property could be saved from commercial development but had little success coming up with a plan. That changed after their chance encounter with Justice Thomas, who was visiting his childhood home with a television news crew. Justice Thomas, 62, was born and raised near the cannery overlooking the Moon River, where it was not uncommon for babies to rock in bassinets made of crab baskets while their mothers shucked oysters. He sympathized with the Varns' wishes and said he had a friend who could help, Mr. Varn said. The Varns eventually sold their property in April 2008. During a recent interview at their home near the cannery, they made it clear that they were ``not supposed to say'' who the buyer was, and a news release issued last November by a Savannah public relations firm said the museum was being ``privately funded by an anonymous donor.'' But the paper trail leads back to Mr. Crow, and in interviews at the project site, people working on it acknowledged that he was financing it. Property records show a company called HKJRS/Pinpoint bought the land for $1.5 million, and incorporation records say the company is controlled by a Dallas-based partnership run by Mr. Crow. Project documents reviewed by The Times show a preliminary construction budget of $1.3 million, but it is unclear if that includes expenses related to the content and design of the museum. Justice Thomas remains closely involved with the project. Emily Owens, a museum spokeswoman who works for Mr. Crow's company, said the justice ``played a big part'' in creating a video documentary that will be part of the museum experience. He hosted a design team from Dallas for a four-hour meeting at his Supreme Court offices in February. And he has had a role in picking people to help with the museum. Barbara Fertig, a history professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, said that she was asked to meet with Justice Thomas last spring and that ``by the end of the meeting, he said he would like me to work on this project.'' She said she had ``never been particularly curious'' about why Mr. Crow is financing it, adding that costly preservation projects are often possible only because of philanthropy motivated by friendships. Justice Thomas and Mr. Crow would seem to fall into that category, Ms. Fertig said. ``I've been in the company of the two of them together,'' she said, ``and they certainly really are friends.'' the code of conduct That friendship is important to determining whether Justice Thomas's interactions with Mr. Crow conflict with the code, said Raymond J. McKoski, a retired state judge in Illinois who wrote a law review article on charitable fund-raising by judges. If Justice Thomas did not ``misuse the prestige of office'' in getting Mr. Crow to take on the project, it should not be a concern, he said. ``Some of it depends on the conversations that took place,'' Mr. McKoski said. ``Who brought up the idea? How willing was Mr. Crow to do it? What exact questions were asked by Justice Thomas?'' Beyond the admonition against fund-raising, the code generally discourages judges from partaking in any off-the- bench behavior that could create even the perception of partiality. It acknowledges the value in judges' being engaged with their communities, lecturing on the law and doing charitable work, but draws a line where those activities might cause a reasonable person to worry that a judge is indebted to or influenced by someone. ``The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period,'' said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common Cause. ``If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action.'' The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary's conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges who rank below the justices. Even so, Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy said in testimony before Congress in April that the justices followed the code. Beyond the code, the justices must comply with laws applying to all federal officials that prohibit conflicts of interest and require disclosure of gifts. Justice Thomas's gift acceptances drew attention in 2004, when The Los Angeles Times reported that he had accumulated gifts totaling $42,200 in the previous six years--far more than any of the other justices. Since 2004, Justice Thomas has never reported another gift. He has continued to disclose travel costs paid by schools and organizations he has visited for speeches and teaching, but he has not reported that any travel was provided by Mr. Crow. Travel records for Mr. Crow's planes and yacht, however, suggest that Justice Thomas may have used them in recent years. In April 2008, not long after Mr. Crow bought the Pin Point property, one of his private planes flew from Washington to Savannah, where his yacht, the Michaela Rose, was docked. That same week, an item appeared in a South Carolina lawyers' publication noting that Justice Thomas was arriving aboard the Michaela Rose in Charleston, a couple of hours north of Savannah, where the Crow family owns luxury vacation properties. The author was a prominent lawyer who said she knew of the visit because of a family connection to Mr. Crow. Justice Thomas reported no gifts of travel that month in his 2008 disclosure. And there are other instances in which Justice Thomas's travels correspond to flights taken by Mr. Crow's planes. On Jan. 4, 2010, when Justice Thomas was in Savannah for the dedication of a building in his honor, Mr. Crow's plane flew from Washington to Savannah and returned to Washington the next day. Justice Thomas reported in his financial disclosure that his travel had been paid for by the Savannah College of Art and Design, which owned the building. In his 2009 financial disclosure, Justice Thomas reported that Southern Methodist University in Dallas--Trammell Crow's alma mater--had provided his travel for a speech there on Sept. 30. Flight records show that Mr. Crow's plane flew from Washington to Dallas that day. Among the questions The Times submitted to Justice Thomas was whether he was on any of those flights, and if so, whether the colleges reimbursed him or Mr. Crow. The colleges declined to comment. One item not required to be reported in Justice Thomas's financial disclosures is the millions of dollars Mr. Crow is spending on the museum. That is because the money is not being given to the justice as a gift. For Algernon and Sharon Varn, who said they were thrilled to see a cherished piece of local history being restored, the museum is a gift to the community. While it is about more than Justice Thomas, they said, he deserves credit for putting them together with someone who had the money and the interest to make the project a reality. ``He was instrumental in getting the process started, because he wanted it preserved to show that no matter where you came from, you can go where you want,'' Mr. Varn said. ``He had a meager existence, and yet look where he is today. It's a great American story.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time, Mr. Speaker. We're considering matters of war and peace today. On Sunday, our Nation will have been engaged in military action in Libya for 100 days. The actions taken by the President have a grave impact on the constitutional role of Congress and the role of the United States abroad. Taken together, these are among the most important issues that we as Members of Congress will ever consider. These are the very debates that scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades to come. Given these fundamental issues, the American people deserve the full and thorough consideration that should be afforded to all legislation introduced in this body--with committee hearings and debate, followed by an open and regular process, and a thoughtful debate by the whole House. In 1990, when I was first here, the body considered a resolution regarding matters of war and peace. At the request of President George H.W. Bush, both Chambers of the United States Congress engaged in a fierce debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in the Persian Gulf. I have vivid memories of those debates long into the night, with issues being debated in committees, marked up by both parties, brought to the House floor for a final debate before the American public. On that particular measure concerning the Persian Gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 Members spoke. It was one of the most thorough airings of our constitutional obligations that I have witnessed. In exchanges that can be publicly accessed today, Members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate engaged in an intelligent and enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, the dangers, and necessities of passing a resolution authorizing American troops to engage in military force overseas. There were strong views on both sides of the aisle, but these views were accompanied by an overriding sense of duty to our country--a belief that Congress would reach a decision based upon the thoughtful and prudent vote of its Members and a reflection of a common interest of all its citizens. As historians look back on the debate over the Persian Gulf War, they can clearly see a vibrant democracy--a democracy that is engaged in robust debate and a democracy earnestly working together for the best interest of its people. Two decades later, we stand in a room imbued with this history--that debate took place right here--but we avoid the robust debates that preceded us here today. Indeed, the way in which today's measures are being debated shame the dignity, history, and tradition of this body. Today's resolutions about our actions in Libya have been rushed through the House of Representatives. They were written behind closed doors and received neither committee hearings nor committee markups. The two resolutions are being considered under a single closed rule following an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon. The process by which these measures proceeded through the Rules Committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that we're being asked to vote for here today. Late Tuesday night--10 o'clock, I believe--we were given two resolutions for an emergency meeting on Wednesday. They were added as emergency items to our afternoon meeting. When we got to the Rules Committee, they had been pulled from the agenda. It wasn't until 9 p.m. Wednesday that we received the text of H.R. 2278. Yesterday, we were notified that the Rules Committee would meet on this new and unvetted bill, along with one of the original two resolutions, less than 3 hours before the meeting began. We now stand on the House floor being asked to vote for a closed rule. We will then be asked to consider two resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust the measures to reflect the true will of the House. Mr. Speaker, I regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future Members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how their forebearers shaped the fate of this country. In the case of the resolution of the Persian Gulf, they'll say how our democratic process thrived, whether one agreed with the resolution or not. Shamefully, in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a dysfunctional democratic process, one that has committed a disservice to the American people, to the dignity of the House of Representatives, and the future of the United States, by avoiding a true debate on one of the most important issues of our time. For these very reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate, we devoted 26 hours to it, and 263 Members, more than half the House of Representatives, spoke. I agree with what has just been said by Ms. Lee: this is much too late. It comes at a very strange time, and it really says today that this is pretty much a political move, which I regret, because this is probably, as she pointed out, and those of us who've been here before having to vote for it, voting to go to war is the most solemn experience that we face here. So let me urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I have no further requests for time, 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to gene patenting. The sequencing of the human genome was the most momentous medical achievement in this century, with unparalleled implications for patients and our economy. And we cannot squander that success by patenting genes. The Human Genome Project has helped our economy to grow by $796 billion. Today, 310,000 American jobs are linked to the sequencing of the Human Genome. Furthermore, personalized medicine has transformed the way doctors care for patients. According to the American Medical Association, more than 1,200 genetic tests can be used today to help diagnose and treat over 1,000 different diseases. Personalized medicine helps to provide safer, more cost-effective medicine. Yet, to fully realize the potential of personalized medicine, we must ensure that our laws and policies keep pace with our science. Today as we consider the patent bill, I would like to clarify the intersection between genes and patents. Many of us carry within us genes that predispose us to illnesses or influence the effectiveness of medications. These genes are natural products--not inventions. And as natural products, they should not be patented. It's this simple: just as a kidney cannot be patented, genetic sequences should not be patented. Unfortunately, 20 percent of our genes have already been claimed as intellectual property. For several decades, the U.S. government issued patents on genes. Thankfully the Department of Justice recognized this clear overreach on the part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office--and moved to correct this mistake. On October 29, 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in which they explained: ``the unique chain of chemical base pairs that induces a human cell to express a BRCA protein is not a `human-made invention.' Nor is the fact that particular natural mutations in that unique chain increase a woman's chance of contracting breast or ovarian cancer. Indeed, the relationship between a naturally occurring nucleotide sequence and the molecule it expresses in a human cell--that is, the relationship between genotype and phenotype--is simply a law of nature. The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is `isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth.'' The United States Department of Justice has come to the inevitable conclusion that genes are natural products, and not fit for patenting. And last year, a federal court in New York came to the same conclusion. Not only is the issuance of patents on genes wrong, contrary to common sense, and in violation of Congressional intent, but it also damages human health. Gene patents have cut off access to important tests. For example, the company that owns sole rights to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences--which determines hereditary risk factors around breast and ovarian cancer--charges between $3,000 and $4,000 for a single test. Other laboratories have offered to perform the test for several hundred dollars, but are not able to do so because of the patent on those particular genetic sequences. And the information provided by this test is critical for medical decision-making: Up to 85 percent of those individuals who possess these genetic sequences will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their life. By granting a monopoly, we risk placing these genetic tests out of reach for patients. Furthermore, gene patents stop innovation in their tracks. They prevent anyone outside of the patent holder from studying the gene sequence under patent. As Dr. Stieglitz of Columbia, a Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote, ``Our genetic makeup is far too complicated for a single entity to hold the keys to any given gene and to be able to choose when, if ever, to share.'' We threaten scientific advancement, if we do not allow scientists to untangle the manifold implications of specific gene sequences. We can not reap the full benefits of personalized medicine if researchers must go to hundreds of different patent holders to analyze one patient's genome. The battle to keep policy and science marching hand in hand has been a long one, and I worked for dozens of years to ensure that the nation's laws support genetics policy. In 1995, I introduced legislation, entitled the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), in order to prevent genetic discrimination. For personalized medicine to flourish, patients needed to be able to get genetic tests without the fear that it would endanger their employment or their health insurance. Thirteen years after I first introduced GINA, it was passed into law. GINA is one of the nation's great civil rights laws, which has helped open the door to personalized medicine. By passing GINA in 2008, the U.S. Congress showed itself to be at the forefront of genetics policy. I expect no less of our government when it comes to gene patenting. Today, the Patent Office has the opportunity to institute evidence-based policy and end the patenting of genes, and it must do so.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do appreciate my friend from Colorado for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, with this rule today, the Republicans waive their so- called CutGo rule to protect a Republican manager's amendment to the patent reform bill. Nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office said, ``We estimate that amendment,'' No. 15, Smith, the manager's amendment, ``would significantly increase direct spending, would not affect revenues.'' I think, if I understand correctly, it adds about $140 million in spending. By reclassifying the fees and spending by the PTO as discretionary, amendment 15 would eliminate $712 million in savings that are scored in the original bill. Republicans have repeatedly characterized this waiver as ``technical.'' They may think the waiver is technical, but for $712 million to be tossed around does not sound technical to me or to most Americans, I'd wager. We think it's real money. It was our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, who complained that the previous Democratic majority frequently waived pay-as-you-go to meet its needs. When the Republicans eliminated the PAYGO rule and replaced it with their CutGo rule, Boehner complained that, ``We routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes.'' Today, it is the internal squabbling of the House Republican Conference whose purposes are being served by a waiver of CutGo. They go on to say the manager's amendment is important enough to waive CutGo because it preserves congressional oversight of the Patent Office.