Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that attacks Planned Parenthood. By targeting Planned Parenthood, the Pence amendment will risk the lives and safety of millions of American women. These proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women's health. I have been a soldier on the other side of that war for several decades. I have served now in three legislatures. In two of them this was one of the issues that came up continuously, is what we would do. In most cases, men in either blue or gray suits felt compelled and competent to tell women what they could do with their lives. It has been a serious problem to try to get women's health in the first place. It was up to the 1990s before women were even considered subject for research at the NIH. It has been an absolute awful time for most of us who are such strong believers in the rights of women and women's health and that women should have the ability to make decisions themselves and not have men have to make them for them. It has been a dreadful time for us to see ending tonight in trying to do away with one of the most important agencies in the United States, Planned Parenthood. I stand here tonight in lieu of hundreds of women in the State of New York, most of them Republican women, who financed, who spoke for, who founded the agency of Planned Parenthood. New York was being filled with an influx of new citizens to America and Planned Parenthood allowed them to space their children so that there would be healthier children and healthier mothers. And we have all benefited from that. But why are we attacking proven medical care? Why aren't we trying to create jobs, which is the only thing we've heard about for the last 6 months? This amendment will do absolutely nothing to move our country forward, but indeed backward. In my own State of New York, the cuts to Planned Parenthood would affect 209,410 patients. Don't tell me that what you're doing here tonight is to allow Planned Parenthood to keep on with the cancer screenings, to keep on making sure that cervical cancer is not something about to take the life of a woman. Don't tell me that you are only trying to cut abortion. You know, we know, everybody knows that Planned Parenthood abortion money is not public tax money. As my other colleagues have said, that has been true for a very long time. The cuts were proposed under the guise of being fiscally responsible, but nothing could be further from the truth. For every dollar--and I want to say this maybe twice, it's so important, because nobody seems to have gotten this except my new friend from Illinois--for every dollar invested in family planning services, taxpayers save $4. So if you think you're going to save yourself some money, go back to your planning board for that. But cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible and will not reduce the United States' bottom line. Furthermore, as we've said over and over again, it has nothing in the world to do with cutting Federal money for abortions. That is simply a smokescreen. We want to empower women to be able to prevent unintended pregnancies, and that's what we would like to do here tonight with the help of Planned Parenthood and other agencies and doctors and medical professionals in the country--make sure that women have education and access to contraception. That is precisely what family planning is and what it does. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment to restore funding to Title X family planning. By slashing Title X family planning services in the budget, Republicans risk the lives and safety of millions of American women. These proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women's health. I ask you to join with me and with my colleagues to restore this vital funding to Title X family planning. Five million men and women depend on Title X providers for important preventive health care. Among other services, they received 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million cervical cancer screenings, and nearly 1 million HIV tests. These services prevent fatal illness; and for those who do have the misfortune to contract HIV/AIDS or cancer, Title X providers ensure that they receive life-saving treatment early, when it has the greatest potential for good. The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these life-saving services. While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the guise of being ``fiscally responsible,'' that is far from the truth. For every dollar invested in Title X family planning services, taxpayers save just under $4. Cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible, and will not reduce the bottom line. Moreover, this cut has nothing to do with ending funding for abortions, despite claims to the contrary. Title X family planning funds simply do not fund abortions. If we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the methodology is clear--empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception. And, that is precisely what family planning funding does. In my home State of New York, cuts to Planned Parenthood would impact 209,410 patients. Just last year, Planned Parenthood provided 70,490 screenings for cervical cancer in New York, detecting 7,931 abnormal results requiring medical action. Another 67,957 women received breast exams. 138,501 tests for chlamydia helped to avert the leading cause of preventable infertility in America today. New Yorkers stand to lose valuable health services. Instead of cutting vital health care services, we should focus on rebuilding our economy and creating jobs.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman. I first want to respond to some of the things that I just heard before I give my statement, if I may. The majority has promised that after we vote on this, we will have some hearings. We are told they are going to be rigorous and fair, and we are reminded of the many hearings held by Mr. Sensenbrenner during the 2005 reauthorization. Well, first, in the 111th Congress we held the hearings before we marked up the Patriot Act, before we asked Members to vote on the bill, not after. We have new Members in the body who have never voted on the Patriot Act, have never been briefed on how these authorities are used. It is simply not responsible to make them vote when they don't know what they are voting on. Second, the majority's nostalgia for 2005 has colored their memories a bit. While they remember a careful and thorough process, I remember being forced to hold minority hearings so all perspectives could be heard. I remember hearings being gaveled to a close before they were over. I remember a subcommittee chairman walking out of the hearing while Members were raising points of order. I remember microphones being turned off on Democrat members, including one of my fellow Members from New York, while they were speaking. I remember being forced to convene a hearing on something like 2 days' notice as the power to schedule the committee was abused. So I don't know how to take these current promises of openness and a fair procedure. Third, while there has been so much talk today on the floor about using the coming hearings to reform the Patriot Act, we know that is simply not what is going to happen. My friends in the majority have already stated their views on the question. Last Congress, Chairman Smith proposed a 10-year extension with no changes or reforms to the underlying law. In 2005, Mr. Sensenbrenner proposed a permanent extension, and they have a bill for that right now in the Senate. Indeed, if there were any will in the majority party to reform these provisions, that would have happened in the last Congress. The Democrat majority worked for months to forge a compromise but got no Republican support. So I don't expect the coming hearings to be part of any kind of reform process. I expect them to be heavy on political theater designed to make these powers permanent. That, no doubt, is why this extension is timed to force the next vote into the presidential primary season; to raise the political stakes. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the 16 provisions were set to expire in 5 years is because they were deemed too invasive of our civil liberties, possibly invasive enough to be used to violate the very freedoms that our young men and women in uniform too often die protecting. These provisions provide the government with exceptional powers of search, seizure, and surveillance, often without the due process that our Constitution guarantees us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Nearly 10 years later, we continue to reauthorize these provisions without a blink of the eye. The idea of these measures always was that they would be temporary. And yet to see the process under which we deliberate them, it seems they would last forever. Seeking no input or deliberation of any point in this bill's consideration and instead choosing to blindly move forward is a rather sad testament to the majority's view of an open process. Ultimately, this is no way to consider a piece of legislation that has such far-reaching and profound implications for our civil liberties as this does. Yet the majority seeks to simply kick the can down the road, all the while stifling the rigorous debate with which these deserve and need to be scrutinized. We would do well to remember that these provisions were passed into law in the frantic weeks after September 11, 2001, without our understanding of their potential impact and benefit. And that is why we created a sunset review in the first place and why we need thorough review as long as we keep these incredible powers in place. Make no mistake, they are incredible powers. We're not patching a run-of-the-mill program here. These are powers that will allow the government to continue to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps, and monitor American citizens. The intrusive nature of these provisions that the majority seeks to whisk through would leave our Founding Fathers aghast at the willful erosion of the civil liberties they enshrined for us. Our swearing into office is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. However, many Members of the House voted against the Constitution when this came on the floor last week. This process, lacking a serious review of far-reaching and invasive provisions, does not live up to that standard. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and against the underlying measure.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today still waiting for the majority to give us a chance to vote on legislation that will create jobs. We are now 6 weeks into the 112th Congress, and we have yet to see a jobs bill from the Republican majority. It's high time the majority party allows us to debate and vote on legislation to get Americans back to work. Instead today, we are debating dangerous and reckless legislation that will cut American jobs and seriously threaten our ability to build upon our fragile economic recovery. At a time when many Americans are still struggling to find employment, the Republican majority proposes a spending bill that ends construction projects, takes police off the street, and halts innovation that spurs job creation. This stands in stark contrast to the President's 2012 budget proposal that lowers our Nation's deficit and creates jobs for Americans by investing in national priorities like education, infrastructure, and emerging energy technology. Unlike some within the Republican Party, the American people are not looking to completely cripple the Federal Government and leave the Nation to the corporate elite. Americans have repeatedly expressed a desire to make smart investments in our national priorities that leave our country more competitive now and into the future, and I stand today with the American people. The Republicans' slash-and-burn budget does nothing to achieve this goal. It even cuts the most fundamental public services, ending policing programs and defunding educational reform efforts here in the United States. As nations like China and India pour money into the research and development of solar panels, wind power, and high-speed trains, creating thousands of jobs for their citizens, the Republican majority is removing the most fundamental investments in comparable American jobs. This reckless approach not only destroys jobs today but also in the months and years to come. This is a critical time in America's history, and if we are to compete with nations like China to create jobs in the United States and win the global marketplace, we must support our own Nation with smart, targeted cuts that will lower the deficit but invest in American jobs. As I said, 6 weeks into the new Congress, and we are still waiting to see this smart, targeted plan to get Americans back to work. Instead, we see this hastily drawn up CR that takes a meat axe to the middle class. And as America waits, the global economy moves ahead, leaving us behind. As the 112th Congress was sworn into office, we were bombarded with promises that an open and transparent process would make a triumphant return to this House floor. But as we now consider our first appropriations bill, we continue to stand here waiting for that grand return. Mr. Speaker, while this rule may have the word ``open'' in the title, I assure you this is not an open process. Through last-minute changes, convoluted parliamentary maneuvers, and a pre-printing requirement, the Republican majority has provided an extremely convoluted and restrictive process. An open rule means that as the legislative process proceeds, as an amendment passes, it may spark an idea for an amendment that another Member may choose to offer with the changes that are made in the legislation. This rule takes away that ability. Also, the Republicans adopted, in a party-line vote at 9 p.m. last night, a parliamentary sleight of hand that blocks the transfer of any money from one part of government to another. This means you cannot use an offset from one part of the bill to increase spending in a different part. In all my years serving in Congress, I have never seen such a blanket prohibition, and yet the leadership would have us believe this is an ``open process'' and that this is ``regular order.'' To top it all off, Republicans have even given themselves an escape hatch with a martial-law provision of the rule which will allow them to report out a new rule for H.R. 1 that shuts down the amendment process without the normal 1-day waiting period. This convoluted process has once again illustrated that the Republican Party continues to believe that claiming the sky is green will make it so. The truth is, you can't create jobs with a press release. You can't fix the Nation's health care system with a clever tag line, and you can't create an open and transparent Congress by creating an open rule in name only. My fellow Democratic colleagues and I are committed to living within our means, while investing in the programs and policies that will help our country compete and win the global future. The Republican majority's continuing resolution couldn't be more dangerous to these values that we all hold dear. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our communities, support legislation that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class while reducing our deficit. Today's CR does not meet this threshold and, as a result, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that what I really would love to see us debating today is how we're going to get out of Afghanistan and stop paying 8 billion borrowed dollars a month for that. Also, in an editorial printed today, The New York Times said what I think a lot of us are saying, that this bill will cut vital government functions and not have any lasting impact on the deficit. [From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2011] The Obama Budget On paper, President Obama's new $3.7 trillion budget is encouraging. It makes a number of tough choices to cut the deficit by a projected $1.1 trillion over 10 years, which is enough to prevent an uncontrolled explosion of debt in the next decade and, as a result, reduce the risk of a fiscal crisis. The questions are whether its tough choices are also wise choices and whether it stands a chance in a Congress in which Republicans, who now dominate the House, are obsessed with making indiscriminate short-term cuts in programs they never liked anyway. The Republican cuts would eviscerate vital government functions while not having any lasting impact on the deficit. What Mr. Obama's budget is most definitely not is a blueprint for dealing with the real long-term problems that feed the budget deficit: rising health care costs, an aging population and a refusal by lawmakers to face the inescapable need to raise taxes at some point. Rather, it defers those critical issues, in hopes, we assume, that both the economy and the political environment will improve in the future. For the most part, Mr. Obama has managed to cut spending while preserving important government duties. That approach is in stark contrast to Congressional Republicans, who are determined to cut spending deeply, no matter the consequences. A case in point: the Obama budget's main cut--$400 billion over 10 years--is the result of a five-year freeze in nonsecurity discretionary programs, a slice of the budget that contains programs that are central to the quality of American lives, including education, environment and financial regulation. But the cuts are not haphazard. The budget boosts education spending by 11 percent over one year and retains the current maximum level of college Pell grants--up to $5,500 a year. To offset some of the costs, the budget would eliminate Pell grants for summer school and let interest accrue during school on federal loans for graduate students, rather than starting the interest meter after graduation. Those are tough cutbacks, but, over all, the Pell grant program would continue to help close to nine million students. The Republican proposal would cut the Pell grant program by 15 percent this year and nearly half over the next two years. The Obama budget also calls for spending on green energy programs--to be paid for, in part, by eliminating $46 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies over the next decade. Republicans are determined not to raise any taxes, even though investing for the future and taming the deficit are impossible without more money. The budget would also increase transportation spending by $242 billion over 10 years. It does not specifically call for an increased gas tax to cover the new costs, though it calls on Congress to come up with new revenues to offset the new spending. Republicans want to eliminate forward-looking programs like high-speed rail. The budget is responsible in other ways. It would cap the value of itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers and use the savings to extend relief from the alternative minimum tax for three years so that the tax does not ensnare millions of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers for whom it was never intended. For nearly a decade, Congress has granted alternative minimum tax relief without paying for it. House Republicans want to leave military spending out of their budget-cutting entirely, but Mr. Obama's budget reduces projected Pentagon spending by $78 billion over five years. If anything, Mr. Obama could safely have proposed cutting deeper, as suggested by his own bipartisan deficit panel. The bill for the military is way too high, above cold-war peak levels, when this country had a superpower adversary. There's a point where the next military spending dollar does not make our society more secure, and it's a point we long ago passed. Mr. Obama's budget also includes a responsible way to head off steep cuts in what Medicare pays doctors. It would postpone the cuts for two years and offset that added cost with $62 billion in other health care savings, like expanding the use of cheaper generic drugs. But not all of Mr. Obama's cuts are acceptable. The president is proposing a reduction by nearly half in the program that provides assistance to low-income families to pay for home heating bills. Shared sacrifice need not involve the very neediest. Ideally, budget cuts would not start until the economic recovery is more firmly entrenched. But the deficit is a pressing political problem. The Obama budget is balanced enough to start the process of deficit reduction, but not so draconian that it would derail the recovery. The same cannot be said for the plan put forward by Republicans last week. It would amputate some of government's most vital functions for the next seven months of fiscal year 2011. (They haven't even gotten to next year yet, never mind the more distant future). Real deficit reduction will require grappling with rising health care costs and an aging population, which means reforms in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as tax increases to bring revenues in line with obligations. Mr. Obama's budget does not directly address those big issues, but doing so would require a negotiating partner, and Mr. Obama, at present, does not have one among the Republican leaders in Congress. His latest budget is a good starting point for a discussion--and a budget deal--but only if Republicans are willing participants in the process. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say, in a column printed Sunday in The New York Times, prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said the bill will sacrifice the future. He also said, ``Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 2011] Eat the Future (By Paul Krugman) On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for immediate cuts in federal spending. Uncharacteristically, they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So I'd like to propose one: Eat the Future. I'll explain in a minute. First, let's talk about the dilemma the G.O.P. faces. Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other people. That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. They're evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and--surprise-- defense. The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the federal budget. Pew also asked people how they would like to see states close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health care, the main expenses states face? No. Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee pensions--and even there the public was evenly divided. The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic. How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They don't have the time or the incentive to study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they hear from seemingly authoritative figures. And what they've been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs. How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when politicians consistently misrepresent that reality? Which brings me back to the Republican dilemma. The new House majority promised to deliver $100 billion in spending cuts--and its members face the prospect of Tea Party primary challenges if they fail to deliver big cuts. Yet the public opposes cuts in programs it likes--and it likes almost everything. What's a politician to do? The answer, once you think about it, is obvious: sacrifice the future. Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren't immediate; basically, eat America's seed corn. There will be a huge price to pay, eventually--but for now, you can keep the base happy. If you didn't understand that logic, you might be puzzled by many items in the House G.O.P. proposal. Why cut a billion dollars from a highly successful program that provides supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers, infants, and young children? Why cut $648 million from nuclear nonproliferation activities? (One terrorist nuke, assembled from stray ex-Soviet fissile material, can ruin your whole day.) Why cut $578 million from the I.R.S. enforcement budget? (Letting tax cheats run wild doesn't exactly serve the cause of deficit reduction.) Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs--a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion--well, tomorrow is another day. In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want. But Republican leaders can't do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming ``death panels!'' in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent. And so they had to produce something like Friday's proposal, a plan that would save remakably little money but would do a remarkably large amount of harm. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the life-saving work done by Title X family planning providers across the nation. In 2009, five million men and women received important preventive services from family planning providers, including 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million tests for cervical cancer, and nearly 1 million HIV tests. The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these services, reducing family planning and cancer prevention services. Cuts to family planning would have devastating consequences to families nationwide. Why is the Republican leadership attacking proven health care services, instead of working with us to create jobs? This legislation does not move our country forward. By attacking family planning and pursuing an extreme social agenda, Republicans are dividing our country and distracting from the very real economic problems facing our nation. While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the auspices of being ``fiscally responsible'', that is far from the truth. For every dollar invested in Title X family planning services, taxpayers save just under $4. By preventing cancer, identifying cancer in early stages, and preventing HIV/AIDS, Title X providers are saving money, as well as lives. Cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible, and will not reduce the bottom line. Moreover, this cut has nothing to do with ending funding for abortions, despite claims to the contrary. Title X family planning funds simply do not fund abortions. If we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the methodology is clear--empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception. And, that is precisely what family planning funding does. Nationwide, this cut will impact family planning services for 5 million women and men. In my home state of New York, cuts to Planned Parenthood would impact 209,410 patients. Just last year, Planned Parenthood provided 70,490 screenings for cervical cancer in New York, detecting 7,931 abnormal results requiring medical action. Another 67,957 women received breast exams. 138,501 tests for Chlamydia helped to avert the leading cause of preventable infertility in America today. New Yorkers stand to lose valuable health services. These statistics represent real women, with real needs. Can we turn our back on them? No, we cannot. We need to work together to invest in the services that will help our country to be successful. We must focus on building our economy, rather than eliminating health care services.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protect the Clean Air Act. Since the passage of the legislation our skies have become cleaner and our economy has become stronger. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the United States has made significant gains in public health, a cleaner environment and a stronger more sustainable economy. Air pollution is costly. It increases asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, respiratory diseases, and lung cancer, and causes premature deaths, hurting our families and burdening our economy. The dangers from air pollution are particularly acute for children and seniors. It is well established that cleaner air and a healthier population go hand in hand. In fact, according to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives. Cleaner air also helps build a stronger economy. In addition to keeping workers on the job, cleaning up air pollution can create new jobs--in designing and manufacturing pollution controls, installing and operating new equipment, and building cleaner facilities. The draft bill from Representative Upton would return us to a Dirty Air Economy, an economy dominated by big polluters willing to pour pollution into our communities in order to help their companies. Erasing the Clean Air Act may be good for corporate profits but it's bad for our national interest. The truth is that we can have clean air and a strong economy at the same time. The last 30 years have proved it. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act, the United States has reduced key air pollutants by 60 percent, while growing our economy by over 200 percent. The legislation, in conjunction with additional protections passed by both parties, has made our country a healthier, cleaner place to live. A new study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Clarkson University found that the air quality in Rochester, New York improved markedly in recent years and that public health may well improve as a result. Falling levels of air pollutants given off by cars, trucks and power plants has resulted in far fewer irritants in the air that could worsen asthma and lead to serious respiratory disease. The decline is in part due to the tighter federal rules on diesel fuel and engines that went into effect in 2006 under a Republican Administration. Like others have pointed out before, clean air standards have always been, and should continue to be, a bipartisan concern. I have the privilege to represent the good people living in Tonawanda, New York--a city that has a staggering and urgent air pollution problem. These hard working Americans are surrounded by facilities that make up the highest concentration of air polluters in the state of New York. In 2007, a study found that the people of Tonawanda's risk of developing cancer are 100 times that of the New York State guideline. During my time serving the 28th District of New York, I have received multiple letters from the people of Tonawanda telling me about how their family and loved ones have developed cancer, asthma and other illnesses due to the extremely poor air quality in their community. Today, I would like to share the story of Ann, a woman who has lived in Tonawanda for 16 years. Ann's mother and father moved to the city to fulfill the American dream of owning their own home. Ann's mother cultivated her own garden in her yard, spending her free time outside gardening and breathing in what she thought was fresh, New York air. Sadly, Ann lost her mother to cancer at the young age of 67, just nine years after moving to Tonawanda and breathing the dirty air. Ann can't help to think that if only her family knew what toxic, cancerous chemicals the local facilities were pumping into the air, they could have protected the health of their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of upholding the Clean Air Act and supporting the Environmental Protection Act in doing its work to protect the American people against dangerous corporate polluters. I rise in support of improving our national health and economy, while reducing our dependence on oil. And I rise in support of Ann and the people of Tonawanda who are facing the devastating consequences of air pollution every day. The choice is simple. When it was passed in 1970, the Clean Air Act was enacted with strong bipartisan support. Like today, we had a divided government, with both parties coming together to enact a law that would protect public health and the environment, as well as our economy. 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 am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Athletics Accountability Act. As opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and athletics have been made increasingly available, women's participation has grown exponentially. Over three million high school girls now participate in organized sports, as opposed to 294,015 in 1971 before Title IX was enacted. Athletic participation has brought with it confidence and camaraderie among young women, giving them memories and friends that will last a lifetime. Despite our progress, persistent attacks against equality for women's sports require that we continue to protect the rights our nation's young women deserve. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for high schools and parents to ensure fairness in their athletics programs. The High School Athletics Accountability Act requires 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. The data will help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Ultimately better information will encourage greater participation of all students in athletics. 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 play sports. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education. A survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Associations indicates that female students receive 1.3 million fewer opportunities to play high school sports than do male students, which translate into many lost opportunities for athletic scholarships. Other studies show that student athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. The New York Times recently highlighted research that found that the ``increase in girls' athletic participation caused by Title IX was associated with a 7 percent lower risk of obesity 20 to 25 years later, when women were in their late 30s and early 40s.'' The study notes that while a 7 percent decline in obesity is modest, ``no other public health program can claim similar success.'' Women athletes also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self-esteem than female non- athletes--critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives. We must give our schools the tools they need to identify inequities in their programs so that current and future generations of women can enjoy the benefits of sports. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help girls move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida. You know, it's rather ironic that we are having this debate today, because it is almost exactly 1 year from the day the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case. That decision opened the floodgates for anonymous special interests and corporations to dump unlimited amounts of cash into our political system. Predictably, the result of this awful judgment was to set loose a torrent of secret money to influence the midterm elections this past November. Now my Republican colleagues propose to further erode whatever protections our government has left against a state of ``democracy for the highest bidder'' by attempting to undo our system of Presidential public financing. Let's remember where this system came from. It was a direct response to the Wild West--unregulated, freewheeling campaigns that led up to the Watergate scandal. The atmosphere of that time was described by campaign finance expert Fred Wertheimer as so bad that contributors to Richard Nixon's reelection campaign were ``literally flying into Washington with satchels of cash.'' Hidden, unregulated, private money ruled. In response to that, Congress acted as much as it could to clean up that system, and we have done fairly well with that. Our democracy will not be able to afford a return to that corruption, but that is what we start today with this bill. This bill will result in even more corporate and special interest money in our campaigns than we have today--and that's really saying something. We don't even know how much money comes in from foreign money. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the one place in our Federal electoral system where we take some of the pressure off of candidates who otherwise have to raise bushels of private money. For the life of me, I can't see how this bill does anything other than add insult to the injury of the terrible Citizens United decision last year. This bill will also take away from American taxpayers the freedom to choose to support good government, to choose to support the public financing of campaigns. Republicans cite the low participation rate as a reason to scrap the entire program. I don't see the sense of that argument. The amount of money that goes into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is directly proportional to how many people check the box on the tax form. Apparently, there is enough support for the program for American taxpayers to designate a projected $617 million, since that's the number being thrown around here today, to be saved over the next 10 years. That sounds to me like enough support to keep the program around. Now, that is certainly not to say that this current system is perfect. It has not really been changed since the seventies. On the contrary, our current system is one in dire need of reform.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. As the Washington Post said yesterday in an editorial opposing this bill: We have a great need to rehab it. Let's fix it. Don't junk it. I wholeheartedly agree. I'd like to see an honest attempt to reform our campaign finance system to provide for openness, transparency and good government. I hope that the other side will join me in supporting such an effort. There are already two bills introduced last Congress and being circulated now that will do just that. The House's very own campaign finance policy expert, Mr. Price of North Carolina, introduced a bill last year, H.R. 6061, the Presidential Funding Act of 2010, which would strengthen and expand the system the Republicans want to dismantle, to bring the system into line with the reality of today's campaigns and boost participation rates. Also, H.R. 5175 in the last Congress, the DISCLOSE Act, which this House passed last year. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we know where the money flooding our campaigns is coming from. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Instead of this anti-small-d- democratic bill the Republicans have brought to the floor without any public input, without any committee hearings and markups, let's debate a serious plan to improve our campaign finance system and strengthen our democracy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions of whom I will never meet but are set to receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in 2014. Health care reform is a major victory for women, and any attempt to repeal or defund this legislation is simply unfair to us, our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends the widespread discrimination that has existed and will come back against women in the health care system. It took us decades until we passed this bill to make it illegal, finally, for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and stop the egregious practice of charging them 48 percent more and to not cover domestic violence victims. Yes, that's right. In eight States and the District of Columbia, insurance would not cover victims of domestic violence on the grounds, I assume, that it might happen again. Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance if they had children. In many places pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition, as were D&Cs. But both of those reprehensible practices are outlawed in the passage of the Affordable Health Care. Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry any more about being treated as second-class citizens or being discriminated against for being a woman. But that's not where the benefits end. When it's fully implemented, all maternity services will be included in health insurance plans. They will no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for people who have had C-sections or pregnancy. I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions whom I will never meet, but are set to receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in 2014. Health care reform is a major victory for women and any attempt to repeal or defund the legislation is simply unfair to us, our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends widespread discrimination against women within the healthcare system. Now the Republican Majority is proposing to replace this legislation with a resolution, another promise to America. What do they promise? Quite simply, that they will figure out a new healthcare plan at some point in the future, and in the meantime you're on your own. It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums, and to stop the egregious practice of discrimination against domestic violence victims. It is unfathomable to take these protections away in exchange for a vague promise of some help down the road. Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, women faced severe discrimination from health insurance companies. Through a practice known as ``gender rating,'' women who purchased insurance on the individual market faced the prospect of paying 48 percent more in premium costs than men. Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance coverage if they had been victims of domestic violence. Shocking as it is, insurance companies often classified domestic violence as a ``pre- existing condition'' and it was completely legal for insurance companies to deny coverage to domestic violence victims in eight states and the District of Columbia. No more. Both of these morally reprehensible practices are outlawed with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the new law, women no longer have to worry about being discriminated against for being born a woman. This is not where benefits for women end. By the time the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014: Maternity services will be included in all health insurance plans offered as part of the health insurance exchanges. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for women with ``pre-existing conditions'' like C-sections or pregnancy. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to place ``lifetime limits'' on health benefits for women, and end care when it is needed the most. Women who do not have access to insurance through employers will be able to obtain insurance through health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are being designed as we speak to offer a wide selection of health insurance plans at competitive rates. Women will receive free preventative health services, from mammograms to pap smears. The ``donut hole'' in Medicare Part D will be closed through the Affordable Care Act, helping women pay for healthcare as they grow older. All these benefits and protections are provided to women while lowering our Nation's deficit--a priority of both parties. The choice is clear. For the health and well-being of our Nation's women, we must end this ill-advised attempt at repeal, and implement the valuable protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and our leader on health care. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we have got every minute taken. I am not sure everybody is going to show up.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is not a dispute between Republicans and Democrats about the $1.3 trillion. CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is saying that. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my gentleman friend, Mr. Dreier, yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. What a week it's been. Since being sworn in on Tuesday, the speed in which the Republican Party is working their promises has been dizzying. Speaking of the Republicans' first days in office, tea party spokesman Mark Meckler summed the week up nicely when he said, ``I actually don't think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this.'' In November, the Republican leadership, led by Speaker Boehner, traveled to suburban Virginia and made a Pledge to America. Their constituents, including tea party patriots like Mr. Meckler, listened intently as the Republican Party pledged to be fiscally responsible and serve the will of the American people. On page 6 of the Republicans' Pledge to America, the party states: ``With commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.'' The pledge was solemnly made by the Republican leadership despite being largely panned as a political stunt. Despite their promise to follow through on their pledge, on Tuesday, aides to the Republican majority said that the pledge to cut $100 billion was ``hypothetical.'' Now today they are moving forward to do the exact opposite of the actions they pledged, as they introduce legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Republican legislation will add $230 billion to the deficit by 2021. This extra $230 billion won't be spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children, or providing for the millions without jobs. Instead, the $230 billion will be added to our deficit in order to take health care benefits and protections from those who need them the most. For example, starting this year, the Affordable Health Care Act will begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. Under the law, Medicare beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription drugs. Repeal this law, and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising drug costs alone. Those are the types of protections that I fight for today. Fiscally, Members of Congress face a $300 billion choice. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have two options: one, do we keep the Affordable Health Care Act and save $130 billion by 2021? Or, two, do we repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and add $230 billion to our deficit by 2021? That may be trouble for some; but for most of us, it is easy. For me, the answer is clear; and I assume to most Americans, it's clear as well. Because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the Republican leadership has taken to discrediting the Congressional Budget Office. Yet a quick bit of research will reveal that Republicans have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the Congressional Budget Office and have publicly supported the agency before. In fact, in 2009 Speaker Boehner repeatedly referred to the CBO as a nonpartisan institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the Affordable Care Act at the time. But now that the CBO's estimates are detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning the work. Republican Senator John Cornyn warned against dismissing the work of CBO just because it's inconvenient. Two years ago he said, ``I believe the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy. ``But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the facts. Last week, I commended the director of the CBO, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for saying that the CBO will 'never adjust our views to make people happy.' God bless Dr. Elmendorf for his integrity and commitment to telling the truth. We need to learn how to deal with the truth, not try to remake it or cover it up.'' Now, I couldn't agree more with that. The deficit estimates provided by the CBO are the singular authoritative figures upon which we make all of our decisions and have for decades. Even if some don't like what the numbers tell us, we know that numbers don't lie. I will remind my colleagues that today's actions are not ``hypothetical.'' We truly face a $300 billion choice. We can choose to provide invaluable benefits to millions of Americans while paying down our national deficit--remember that it will save $143 billion over 10 years--or we can choose to end valuable health care protections for millions of Americans and add $230 billion to the Nation's deficit. Madam Speaker, today we are considering the first measure from the Rules Committee of this new Congress, and my Republican friends have already produced one for the record books. Let me give you some of the highlights. First of all, the resolution includes a completely closed process for two separate pieces of legislation. That means we get two closed rules in one. Maybe my Republican friends think they can save taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single resolution. I think that's what they meant by bringing efficiency to government. The first closed rule on the health care repeal bill does most of the heavy lifting. It blocks every single germane amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. Well, that's not exactly right, though. It actually slips in one change without allowing the House to vote on it. This special amendment, slipped in with the famous deem-and-pass maneuver, is very interesting. It allows the House to pretend that the repeal bill is free, even though the Budget Office says it will raise the deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a neat trick; and now we know the secret weapon for reducing the deficit: a blindfold. This closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal because this Republican bill has had no public hearings, no committee consideration, and is not paid for. The second closed rule in this two- for-one package blocks all amendments to another resolution to correct a flaw in the swearing-in process. Apparently the vice chairman of the Rules Committee was conducting legislative business before he was actually a Member of Congress. Maybe amendments are not important here because no Member in the House has seen this resolution, since the rule allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is introduced. But if any of my colleagues are concerned about not having enough time to read this surprise resolution, don't worry: the rule allows the House to debate it for 4 full minutes, 4 minutes. Have you ever heard of a bill debated for 4 minutes? Fortunately, the rule generously gives the minority 2 of those 4 minutes, and I guess that qualifies as both efficiency and bipartisanship. Finally, the rule allows the House to consider a sweeping press release from the Republican leadership, a resolution to replace real patient protections with vague rhetoric. Madam Speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the House Rules Committee. Our first action of the new Congress violates the promises that we heard from our Republican friends: no public hearings, no committee consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text no Member has read, 4 minutes of debate on an important constitutional issue, and so on. For all those Members who were sent to Washington, like I was, to repair our Nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the unemployed, help the millions of Americans in need, the decision should be simple. I encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of Republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents, and vote to keep the affordable health care law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).