Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It makes in order the committee amendment as an original bill and provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and waives all points of order against those amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides the Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill. Mr. Speaker, over the years we have watched as countless stories revealed flaws in the military's procurement operation. Disappointment with the way the Department of Defense manages the money we appropriate it reflects poorly not just on the Pentagon, but on Congress as well. The $640 toilet seat is now the stuff of legend, but sadly it is often just the tip of the iceberg. In recent years, excesses stemming from the ill considered rush towards privatization championed by the previous administration have become increasingly common. The push to contract out nearly every part of the military's mission has inevitably led to waste, fraud, and abuse involving some of the biggest corporate names in this country. Sadly, I believe that many years from now historians will associate a significant part of the war in Iraq with wasteful and poorly managed contracts that made private companies millions of dollars, billions of dollars, actually, often at the expense of our own men and women in uniform and certainly of taxpayers. Two years ago in Congress, I was here on the floor as the House debated H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. That, too, was intended to save taxpayer money. Earlier in the 110th Congress, I worked with my friend, Ms. Schakowsky, on H.R. 897, the Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act. I hesitate to say that those and other efforts towards contracting reform have been unsuccessful. Clearly, we have made significant reforms and part of our work in Congress involves regular and diligent oversight. It is a never-ending process. For my part, one of my proudest efforts during my career in Congress has been to force the Pentagon to acknowledge that some of the testing done on body armor for troops during an early part of the war was deeply flawed. My work on this issue grew out of a 2006 audit that I read about in The New York Times that found that 80 percent of marines who had died in Iraq of upper body wounds would have survived with the proper body armor. I waited for other committees to take the lead, but no one came to the floor. We are still working on this issue, but we have come a very long way. Major changes have been made in testing labs, some of them taken back into the Army rather than contracted out, which in this case did not work. Thankfully, however, the work did accomplish one thing: the military agreed to no more poorly managed deals for outside contractors to test the body armor. All current and future body armor testing will be conducted internally by the Department of Testing and Evaluation within the DOD with strict standards to ensure our troops receive nothing but the highest quality of body armor. When it comes to the safety of our troops, which we send into battle, it is foolish to put the bid out to the lowest-priced contractor. But today we have moved into a new chapter of oversight and reform, and I am happy to see it come. This morning we are bringing up an important piece of legislation intended to help the Pentagon reform inefficient procurement operations. It's called the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010, otherwise known as the IMPROVE Act. This bill will help the Defense Department immediately, once this is signed, to crack down on cost overruns and lax oversight of contractors. Not only that, but the bill should help reduce our dangerous reliance oftentimes on outside companies to do so many varied functions on behalf of the military. It is hard to overstate how important this bill is. My colleague, Mr. Conaway of Texas, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee Defense Acquisition Panel, offered the following testimonial on how urgent the need is for contracting and acquisition reform. He said: ``The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal Government, owning 86 percent of the government's assets, estimated at $4.6 trillion. Over the last two decades, millions of dollars have been spent by DOD in the quest to obtain auditable financial statements.'' Yet getting those numbers has proven elusive, if not at times impossible. No more, Mr. Speaker, after this bill is signed. This bill mandates that the Pentagon consider shifting work away from contractors if they don't meet the cost goals. It will set up a new system of cost objectives and schedules which DOD procurement officers would have to follow. The bill says that by 2017 Pentagon agencies must prepare records that can be audited and draft a new policy that wouldn't reward those who don't meet requirements. These are simple, sensible reforms that the American people can understand and appreciate. No matter what anyone in Congress thinks of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us know that the men and women who are serving overseas rely on the equipment, and they deserve to know that the funds for their equipment are not being squandered and that they are given equipment of the highest quality. Another bright note on this legislation is that, when it was approved by the Armed Services Committee, the vote was 56-0. Such bipartisanship is rare in the House these days, and I am happy to speak on a bill that all of us can agree on. Although there is not currently any pending movement on the bill in the Senate, it is my hope a decisive and strong bipartisan vote today on this bill will spur the Senate into action. Billions of taxpayer dollars and the trust of our troops depend on it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentlewoman that there were 26 amendments offered on this bill. Only one was a Republican amendment. Ten amendments were not allowed, but the Republican amendment was. We are not afraid of debate. We are not afraid of discussion. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat taken aback by your calling for a ``no'' vote on this rule given that this legislation passed unanimously out of the committee. I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on both the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned about veterans access to benefits, care and job training. We must encourage soldiers completing their active duty service to sign up with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a critical message we must reiterate to all our returning service men and women. As the heroes of our country, we believe our veterans and their families deserve the very best benefits to ensure peace of mind. With this in mind, Congress has provided more than 185,000 servicemembers and veterans with $500 for every month they were forced to serve under stop-loss orders since 2001. In addition, we've created new claims processors to make sure our veterans earn their benefits in a timely manner. We built new transition centers for wounded warriors, more military child care centers, and better barracks and military family housing. With veterans' families in mind, Congress has increased support for veteran caregivers. And lastly, those disabled veterans can rest assured that their benefits will keep pace with the cost of living and their needs. Today I rise in support of S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act. This landmark legislation will provide support to family and others who care for disabled, ill, or injured veterans; will enhance health services for the 1.8 million women veterans, including care for newborns for the first time in history; to expand mental health services for veterans and health care access for veterans in rural areas; and to prohibit copayments for veterans who are catastrophically disabled. To help meet the many hardships and sacrifices associated with lengthy recovery and rehabilitation from severe injuries of veterans, S. 1963 will provide support services to family and other caregivers of veterans, including education on how to be a better caregiver, counseling and mental health services, and respite care for family and other caregivers of all veterans. It also provides health care and a stipend for caregivers living with severely wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. This support is vital for the wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, as about 20 percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve and 25 percent of retired and separated members have a family member or friend who has been forced to leave a job to care for the veteran full-time, according to the Dole/Shalala report. The bill also expands and improves VA health care services for the women who have bravely served their country, working to remove existing barriers to women veterans seeking health care, providing up to seven days of care of newborn children of women veterans for the first time in history, and enhancing treatment for sexual trauma for women at the VA. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of this historic legislation for the sake of our heroes and their families. Our veterans deserve our gratitude and support at the very least.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Senate moves closer to voting on Financial Regulatory Reform, it is necessary to remind Members of Congress and the American people why this legislation is urgently needed. The global financial system was pushed to the brink of collapse in the fall of 2008 by the excessive risk taking and overleveraging of large scale banks and financial institutions. As a direct result, the U.S. economy was faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 8 million Americans lost their jobs, pensions fell by $28.4 billion, 2.8 million homes were foreclosed on, and trillions of dollars of savings and wealth were wiped out almost overnight. Only after an unprecedented intervention by the federal government at the expense of American Taxpayers did our financial system return to stability. The failure of Wall Street Banks to police themselves and act in the best interests of the public demonstrates the need for tough new federal regulations. The proposed financial reforms in the Senate bill will address the fundamental failures of the financial system that allowed reckless individuals and firms to threaten the collective economic security of our nation. These reforms, in short, will: Create a consumer financial protection agency (CFPA) to monitor consumer banking products and ensure the full and fair disclosure of every personal banking product to all Americans. Eliminate the possibility of future bailouts by discouraging the formation of ``too big to fail'' firms that pose systemic risks to the security of the financial system. Finally eliminate loopholes that allow complex and high risk investment vehicles such as over-the-counter derivatives and asset backed securities to escape the oversight of regulators Provide shareholders of banks with influence on matters relating to executive compensation Provide tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses. And Enforce existing regulations and allow regulators to aggressively pursue misconduct and fraud These regulations will help ensure that the failures of the banking system that occurred during the financial crisis of 2008 never again threaten the collective economic security of our nation. Following on the heels of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and efforts to ensure fair and full disclosure of financial products to all Americans, I introduced a bill with my colleague Congressman John Tierney to curb the abusive lending practices of credit card companies. H.R. 4300 the Restoring America's Commitment to Consumers Act would: Create a National Credit Card Usury Rate at 16 percent to prevent banks from charging unreasonably high interest rates Limit unreasonable fees including certain ``up-front'' fees associated with the extension of credit, such as membership fees and annual fees under the 16 percent usury cap. All other fees not included in the cap, such as late fees or insufficient funds fees are capped at $15.00 per fee. As the economic situation continues to remain fragile for millions of Americans and costs continue to rise, our constituents face tough choices when determining how to allocate their monthly income. Many are forced to put everyday expenses such as their utility, grocery or medical bills on their credit cards just to make ends meet. Far from helping struggling consumers, credit card companies appear to be exploiting this debt cycle by increasing interest rates to as much as 30 percent and piling on fees. A December 2009 Associated Press story revealed a credit card interest rates as a high as 79.99 percent with a minimum of $256 in fees in the first year for a credit line of $250. Although the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 capped such fees at 25 percent of a card's credit line, the bill did nothing to cap unreasonably high interest rates and the 79.99 percent rate remained in place. With respect to the impact of the financial crisis on the health of the economy, it should be noted that New York State has shouldered a large share of the burden. The state has lost some 112,700 non-farm jobs since March 2009 while the private sector has lost 86,500 jobs. Statewide, the seasonally adjusted jobless rate in March was 8.6 percent, compared with 8.8 percent in February, 7.8 percent a year ago and as low as 4.6 percent in October of 2007. Some 831,800 people were unemployed statewide last month. The role Wall Street played in leading to the great recession cannot be downplayed or ignored. It should be clear that reform of the financial services industry is necessary to protect the interests of our citizens. Following a long period of economic distress and at a time when the recovery of our economy is tenuous, the reform of abusive practices within the financial industry that both caused and exacerbated the suffering of millions of Americans is desperately needed. Congress must act now to address the fundamental weaknesses of the financial system and prevent history from repeating itself.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the Transportation Committee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title and concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. It provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion. The rule provides the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules; and waives requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This requirement is waived through Monday, March 29. Mr. Speaker, I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused to the people of our area. Yesterday morning, right here in the Capitol, I was privileged to meet with some of the victims' families. It is always a sobering experience to sit down with those brave souls and their efforts to fight for safer travel for the rest of us. Their great fight is a testament to their commitment and passion. In fact, it is my sincere hope and prayer that once we finish this effort and make changes to the laws governing pilot safety that we can find a way to name it to honor the lost lives of this crash. I suggest calling this legislation the ``Buffalo Safety Act.'' I can think of no better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about flight safety than honoring the people who died on that icy, snowy night. The meeting I had yesterday morning centered on safety proposals and a discussion of how this legislation will eventually be implemented. We also talked with the Federal Aviation Administration about why it has to take so long before simple, commonsense changes can be made to the laws that govern how many hours a pilot flies, how they are trained and who is responsible for ensuring their flight records are not locked away in some box where nobody can assess their skills. After last year's crash, I could hardly believe it when we learned that the pilot of Flight 3407 had failed five different tests, yet his employer only knew about two of those failures. Shouldn't a pilot's entire flying record be available to their employer? I think so. I know it would make me feel better about getting on a plane. As you know, I have been fighting for a handful of specific and simple changes to current law. I believe that the regional pilots have to be paid better. Better compensation will help to make sure we get the best people in the cockpit. I was stunned to learn that the first officer of Flight 3407 was paid $16,000 a year. That is less than you would earn at a convenience store. Is that what we should pay people who we trust with our lives? I am also worried about fatigue. A tired pilot is not at his or her best, and that is not acceptable. My proposal would call for a study by the National Academy of Science on this topic but would go further by tasking the FAA to rewrite many of the standards for pilots. I would like to see pilots' flight records available so that everybody knows about the problems in their past flying experiences. Again, my plan would mandate that the General Accounting Office review this with an eye toward greater transparency. I would like to see carrier maintenance of their aircraft, changes made to the cozy relationship that the FAA has with airlines, and some way to put real teeth into the recommendations that grew out of the horrific hearings last spring by the National Transportation Safety Board. It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals. Of course, the legislation that we are debating today is about much more. With this bill, we have essentially combined our pilot safety bill and the FAA authorization in one package. It is my hope the Senate will do the right thing and allow us to go to conference where we can quickly and appropriately settle upon a compromise that allows us to turn this conversation into tangible improvements. Besides the safety programs, this bill provides essential increases in aviation funding and safety improvements and invests in the Airport Improvement Program to help overcome congestion and delays. The amendment we are considering today consists of the text of two bills that already have passed the House, H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009. I urge my colleagues to come together with me to approve this rule. Let us move quickly to pass this amendment and send it to the Senate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to Mr. Sessions' comments on jobs, I would like to quote from this morning's Dallas Morning News and then submit the article for the Record. ``Jobs picture.'' I believe this is the gentleman's district. ``Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including the Dallas-Forth Worth area--will have made up for employment lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next year.'' ``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs.'' The just-passed Federal health care legislation could add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one of the States with the highest percentage of consumers who have no health care insurance. [From the Dallas Morning News, Mar. 24, 2010] Moody's Experts Predict Texas Cities Will Lead the Recovery (By Steve Brown) Texas cities will outpace the rest of the country coming out of the recession. But that doesn't mean there won't be bumps in the road to recovery, the folks at Moody's Analytics said Tuesday at their annual Dallas economic confab. There's still some bad news--more woes in store for the battered real estate sector. But Moody's predicts that Texas will find new jobs in health care, high tech and energy. ``This region really does lead the nation in terms of recovery and will be one of the first regions to achieve a new employment peak,'' Steven Cochrane, Moody's Analytics' managing director, told more than 100 local businesspeople at the session. ``The recession was just so shallow here because the housing cycle was shallow. ``Income growth was more stable, and state fiscal conditions are better,'' he said. ``There is a smaller hole to dig out of.'' Jobs picture Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including the Dallas-Fort Worth area--will have made up for employment lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next year or early 2012. ``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs,'' Cochrane said. The Dallas area is expected to increase employment by about 1.5 percent in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011. Oil and gas and high tech will be among the sectors that drive job creation in Texas during the next few years, Moody's predicts. The just-passed federal health care legislation could also add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one of the states with the highest percentage of consumers who lack medical insurance. Big growth driver ``We will probably see this as a big growth driver in all of the South long term,'' Cochrane said. Moody's analysts aren't bullish about the country's housing market. They expect further weakness this year and a slow turnaround when it comes. ``Foreclosures are at best peaking now,'' Moody's Analytics director Edward Friedman said. ``Maybe it will be another three or for months before they finally peak completely, and we see the true turnabout we need to believe the housing market is headed on the right track.'' That's why Moody's is forecasting further declines in nationwide home prices during the next six months. ``We think another 5 or 10 percent,'' Friedman said. The drag of housing Unlike in most economic rebounds, the housing market will continue to drag, he said. ``The housing sector--isn't that the sector that leads the recovery?'' Friedman said. ``Not this time.'' Moody's estimates that U.S. households have lost almost $6 trillion in housing values during the recession. ``The rebound so far has only been in the stock market,'' Friedman said. ``You are not getting your housing construction rebound.'' Texas home prices aren't likely to see much of a bounce during the next couple of years, the analysts predict. ``Housing isn't a significant driver in the Texas economy right now,'' Cochrane said. Moody's also has red flags flying over the U.S. commercial real estate market but doesn't think commercial price adjustments will hurt the economy as badly as the housing sector shakeout has. ``Nonresidential construction is pretty far down,'' Friedman said. ``How much further down could it go?'' I would also like to quote from an AP article this morning and then submit the article for the Record. ``The Labor Department said Thursday''--that's today--``that first- time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.'' As you recall, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of this session we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we have moved steady, month by month, putting people back to work. The next thing I'd like to report, ``Analysts forecast the Nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs in March,'' and, ``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling that . . . job creation is imminent,'' say the economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who wrote that before the Labor Department's report. Unemployment Claims Drop by 14,000--Most of the Drop Pegged to Adjustments in How Labor Department Calculates Claims Washington, Mar. 25, 2010.--(AP) New claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected in the U.S. last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers. The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, according to Thomson Reuters. But most of the drop resulted from a change in the calculations the department makes to seasonally adjust the data, a Labor Department analyst said. Excluding the effect of those adjustments, claims would have fallen by only 4,000. The department updates its seasonal adjustment methods every year, and revises its data for the previous five years. Seasonal adjustment attempts to filter out expected changes in employment such as the layoff of temporary retail employees after the winter holidays. The goal of seasonally adjusted figures is to provide a more accurate picture of underlying economic trends. Excluding seasonal adjustment, initial claims fell by more than 30,000 last week to 405,557. The four-week average of claims, which smooths volatility, dropped by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 453,750, the department said, the lowest since September 2008, when the financial crisis intensified. Initial claims have fallen in three of the past four weeks, wiping out most of the increase that took place in the first two months of this year. That increase early in the year stoked worries among economists that improvement in the job market was stalling. First-time claims were elevated last month by severe snowstorms on the East Coast, which caused backlogs in many state offices that fell behind in processing claims. Many economists say claims need to fall below roughly 425,000 to signal that the economy will consistently create jobs, though some say it could happen with claims at higher levels. Analysts forecast the nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs in March, partly due to temporary hiring for the Census. The March figures will be reported April 2. ``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling that . . . job creation is imminent,'' economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote before the Labor Department's report. Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire new workers. The number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment benefits, meanwhile, fell to 4.6 million. But that doesn't include millions of people who are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 extra weeks, paid for by the federal government, on top of the 26 customarily provided by the states. Nearly 5.7 million people were on the extended benefit rolls for the week ended March 6, the latest data available. That is about 300,000 lower than the previous week. The extended benefit figures aren't seasonally adjusted and are volatile from week to week. All told, more than 11.1 million people are claiming unemployment benefits, the department said. I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1225 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4872. It shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 4872, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered by the Chair of the Education Committee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. Madam Speaker, the disturbing atmosphere that we've seen around the Capitol recently is alarming. The rash of ominous threats, voice mails, letters, brick throwing, and other sordid acts of protests is downright despicable and marks a low point in the Nation's history. I say this in part from firsthand experience. As many of you know, my Niagara Falls office was the target of attack last week when someone hurled a brick through the window in the dark of night. Separately, I received a phone call on my campaign office phone line that referenced 16 sniper teams and an attempt that would be made to target the children of Members of Congress who voted for the health care legislation. Each day my four offices give me a careful log of phone calls and emails from people who have taken the time to share their opinions with me, and I read each of those comments because I value that input and want to hear from everyone, not just the people who agree with me. I daresay there isn't a single elected official in the country who has not had a heated run-in with someone who felt strongly that they had voted the wrong way on an issue. In fact, it is part of this country's great tradition that we not only tolerate dissent but we encourage it. To speak up and to take part in democracy is a noble and treasured part of the American way. But all that changed last year when suddenly town hall meetings across the country turned into vicious shouting matches. Persons who had taken the time to go to the town meeting to learn about the health care bill were oftentimes harassed and frightened and unable to learn anything except that they felt somewhat under siege. I remember that someone arrived at a meeting with a handgun holstered to his leg, and he could not have been more than 50 yards away from the President of the United States. Spirited debate has become negative. All of us have noticed that in our offices. As I mentioned, I have four offices. The calls that came in--I thank my staff, and I'm sure all of you do, too, for simply tolerating it. It was all day. One day the calls came in so quickly that not another piece of work could be done in all my offices. We were threatened. We were cajoled. We were told--mostly by people from Texas and Oklahoma--that they would never vote for me again, which would be very unlikely in New York anyway. But I am happy to tell you that as of Sunday night and the passage of this bill, all of those calls are gone. We were getting up to--I would say totaling in the four offices nearly 100 a day. It's all gone now, and the people who call express sorrow for the trouble that has been put upon me, saying that their America does not do that to anyone, particularly someone that they have put their trust in. But this week, the leader of the national Republican Party said that Speaker Pelosi should be put ``on the firing line.'' Another Republican leader and former national party candidate placed rifle site targets on a national map showing congressional districts of Democrats who supported health care for all Americans, and that same leader urged her supporters, ``Don't retreat, reload.'' And even worse were the remarks made here by the minority leader, who recently said that one of my colleagues who backed the legislation was politically a ``dead man'' back home. Taken together with the incidents around the country, these episodes might prompt a quick and forceful repudiation of comments that would endorse violence, but instead, we get just the opposite. When Republican Members went out onto the balcony off the Speaker's lobby Sunday to shout to and encourage rowdy protesters, they were implicitly encouraging a discourse that had already soured. In fact, I was dismayed to learn--not dismayed, dismayed doesn't cover it--I was angry. I was concerned. It terrified me, the thought that we would have to live through any of that again. When I found out that some of my colleagues were the victims of racial epithets, spitting, homophobic slurs, this sort of display is shocking even to someone who has seen some pretty terrible things over the years. Despite all this, Democrats move forward with hope and optimism. It is my sense that as more Americans learn about the provisions of the health care reform legislation, they will in increasing numbers support the vote over the weekend, and the polls show this already happening. It is a surprise to me today that with the passage of reconciliation by a 56-43 margin in the Senate, that the other side would continue to try to throw up petty roadblocks or complain that they haven't had time to read the bill. Do you want to know what we are debating here today? We are debating two sentences. That's it, two sentences. Does it make sense to anyone that the other side is demonizing a bill that has already been approved by both the House and Senate and signed into law? No, instead we should celebrate the incredible accomplishment of finally passing this legislation after a struggle of more than a hundred years. I won't even bother reciting all of the ways in which ordinary Americans will gain as we shift the balance of power away from insurance companies and back to patients, because they will know very shortly. I have already spoken at length about how under our bill families will no longer feel trapped by their coverage or fearful about children with preexisting conditions. Health care reform, I am happy to say, is now the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to join me today in quickly adopting these small technical fixes to the legislation so we may move on to more pressing challenges. I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I feel I need to introduce Dr. Donna Christensen, who is a medical doctor from the Virgin Islands, for 15 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I cannot yield for that purpose.