Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to today's vote by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to relax limitations on media ownership.

Apparently, the FCC has overlooked the fact that the airwaves are owned by the American public, just as the Commission has forgotten that its legislated mission is to protect those same airwaves for the public's use.

Relaxing rules that have worked for decades in order to allow huge conglomerates to gobble up even more media outlets will certainly diminish the quality of our news and stifle minority views and opinions.

I find it particularly interesting that while the FCC regulators and their staff were reviewing the changes, they took some 2,500 junkets-- worth almost $3 million--which were paid for by the media industry. During all that time, the Commission managed to hold just one public hearing. Does anyone have any doubt to whom the FCC was listening during its deliberation process--the media moguls or the public?

I understand how the FCC decisions will benefit those media conglomerates. What I do not understand is how they benefit private citizens or our democracy, which can only survive on the free flow of information and diverse opinions.

Now that the decision has been made, it will be up to Congress to review these rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that public interest will be heard--and that our airwaves will not fall victim to powerful special interests. I would like to share with my colleagues an op-ed I authored on this issue which appeared today in Rochester, New York's Democrat & Chronicle.

Too Little Discussion Has Preceded FCC Decision on Media Ownership

(By Representative Louise M. Slaughter)

What if one person controlled all the information in the

newspaper you are reading, on your favorite radio station and

on the TV channel you watch nightly?

It could begin to happen today, when a five-member panel at

the Federal Communications Commission votes on relaxing

regulations governing media ownership in this nation.

Sixty years ago, when television was just a fledgling

invention, the FCC was created to ensure that our airwaves--

which the American public owns--would not be dominated by a

few large corporations that could control information and

news.

Our government rightly recognized that the free flow of

ideas, opinions and information is central to the ongoing

national dialogue that drives this great democracy.

Protecting local and minority ownership of media outlets is

also crucial to guaranteeing coverage of local issues and

diverse viewpoints.

As time passed, a few large corporations began to acquire

more newspapers, radio and TV stations across our nation.

Thirty years ago, there were 1,500 locally or regionally

owned newspapers. Now, there are only 281 such independent

papers. Six large companies control most of the media in this

nation, while three corporations control all the cable news.

After 1996, when the FCC relaxed ownership limits for radio

stations, 90 percent of radio stations were bought or sold

within five years. Hundreds of stations have been

consolidated since then: Clear Channel now owns more than

1,200 radio stations. Before, they could own only 40.

In Rochester alone, six of our radio stations are owned by

Clear Channel. Four more are owned by Infinity Broadcasting.

Thus the information and music aired on 10 stations in

Rochester are controlled by two conglomerates that are based

nowhere near here and have little concern for our local

issues.

The FCC is now considering relaxing its regulations even

further, which will certainly lead to a dangerous

concentration of media ownership. The proposed changes would

allow networks to own stations reaching as much as 90 percent

of the country,

allow companies to own three television stations in some

markets and would do away with a 28-year ban on companies

owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market.

What is perhaps more egregious is the secretive process

through which these changes have been considered. The FCC

tried to keep the plan's details secret and refused to have

more than one, barely publicized hearing on the issue. FCC

Chairman Michael Powell has rejected requests from two of his

own commission members to delay the vote for more public

comment.

Fortunately, even though this issue got relatively little

media coverage, the American public has taken action.

Progressive and conservative interest groups, artists and 200

communications academics have protested the new rules. Of the

9,000 e-mails the FCC has received on the issue, only 11

supported relaxing the rules. I, along with 100 of my

colleagues in Congress, recently wrote to Chairman Powell

expressing our opposition to the proposed rules.

Unfortunately, the FCC is not listening.

Owners of media outlets are obliged to serve the public

interest--not just their own financial interests. Our

Founding Fathers created this democracy to give us the right

to debate ideas openly and make informed choices. If these

changes go into effect, a few huge, powerful corporations

could gobble up even more media outlets to control most of

the news we get.

Be grateful that today you had the opportunity to read

about these proposed changes, supported by the powerful media

conglomerates. If they have their way, the next time the FCC

decides to change the rules, you may not be informed at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me apologize for my misunderstanding of the time.

Mr. Speaker, our workforce is what made the United States the great Nation it is, but here we are debating yet another bill that erodes protections for our workers. Here we go again sending another message to our workforce that we just do not care that short-term gain for a few is more important to us than the economic well-being of the Nation.

Life for the American worker continues to be arduous and uncertain, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment has risen 6 percent. In my home State of New York, the unemployment rate is even higher at 6.3. Unemployment insurance benefits expire at the end of this month even though almost 9 million Americans are without work. Nothing on the legislative horizon confronts the needs of the millions of the jobless.

Mr. Speaker, this body and this administration have failed the American worker and continue to do so with this bill. Recently, this esteemed body had several opportunities to tackle the plight of the laidoff factory workers, the unemployed bookkeepers, and this Chamber squandered those chances. Today, the House has another opportunity to assist American workers by continuing the necessary reforms so painfully highlighted by the collapse of major corporations like Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing. The employees of WorldCom lost $25 million. Enron employees lost $800 million. And the American workforce nervously looks to us to protect their pensions and their life savings. And unfortunately, H.R. 1000 does not go far enough to protect pensions. In fact, this legislation actually harms American workers with what it does and what it fails to do. We must show the people, whose faith and trust sent us here, that we did learn the painful lessons of the Enron, the WorldCom, and the Global Crossing crises.

H.R. 1000 would permit companies to convert traditional defined benefit pension plans into cash balance pension plans. This saves the corporations millions of dollars, but it cuts by half the pension benefits of retired workers, and employees have no control over the conversion.

Now, why is the control of your pension plan given to a company with the self-interest of saving millions of dollars? Even more egregious is that, as companies have been slashing benefits for their workers, they have been increasing compensation packages for their CEOs. Further, this bill handcuffs employees for 3 years after the contribution of company-matched stocks. Under current law, workers are protected from financial advisors with conflicts of interest. This bill strikes this protection from ERISA and allows financial advisors to recommend products from their own firms and even earn fees for pushing certain products. In fact, the Attorney General of the State of New York just settled with 10 of the most respected investment firms for $1.4 billion because these firms offered self-interested investment advice.

H.R. 1000 further fails the American workers in its omission of requirements that companies inform employees when someone dumps large amounts of the company stock. You recall that was a serious issue for the Enron employees. When former Enron CEO Ken Lay sold his Enron stock, he unloaded 1.8 million shares for $101.3 million, did not tell his employees, left them in the dark, and they lost their life savings. Indeed, throughout that period, the employees were urged to buy more and more Enron stock.

Last night the Committee on Rules passed a rule that does not allow this body through debate to delve into the complex issues of ERISA and securing retirement funds.

H. Res. 230 allows only 80 minutes of debate on the bill. This rule is just another example of the erosion of this institution as a deliberative body.

Mr. Speaker, the American workforce deserves our profound respect; and, Mr. Speaker, they have no one else to turn to but us. Over and over we have failed them. They deserve the pensions they were promised during their years of service. How heartbreaking it is for someone who has spent 30 years of their life with a single company, always being partially responsible for the profit of that company, to then lose a major part of that pension. And the almost-9 million unemployed deserve an extension on unemployment insurance to keep them afloat in a sea of economic uncertainty. I just had a letter in my office from a man who has been out of work now for 19 months with absolutely no outlook that he will find anything soon and asking me what in the world can he do. We try to answer that question often, Mr. Speaker; and it does this House no good that the answer we have is that we have refused to extend unemployment benefits.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the Pension Security Act it will take up H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act. This bill will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and would also give a 13-week extension to those whose benefits have been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, with unemployment rates increasing daily, this is the third month in a row, now that we are in May, that this economy has lost jobs. Of the 8.8 million unemployed, 2 million out of work for 27 weeks or more, the average length of unemployment is nearly 20 weeks, the highest since 1984. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately.

Current Federal unemployment benefits expire at the end of this month, just 2\1/2\ weeks away. On two separate occasions last week, the Republicans in this House voted to block an opportunity to extend these benefits. Let us not let unemployed Americans down a third time. Let us bring this greatly needed responsible legislation to the floor for a vote.

Now, let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the pension security act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 1000 and on H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing the desperately needed extension of Federal employment benefits to our unemployed workers one more time.

Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to vote on extending Federal unemployment benefits. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and remind my colleagues that these unemployed workers have no one to turn to but us, and they sent us here to do our best for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Carol A. Greiner. Carol has

been the Honorary President of the University of Buffalo Women's Club, and she has been tirelessly committed to the University and to the Buffalo region for years.

Carol has a long history of service to her community that is to be commended. Aside from her involvement in the University of Buffalo Women's Club, she has volunteered her time in many capacities that include organizing a campaign to raise funds for the establishment of the first kidney dialysis center in Seattle and serving as a dedicated participant in the Parent Teacher Association for over 17 years.

Carol is an example for how to balance the demands of family, career, and community service. She has strongly supported her husband, now President of the University of Buffalo, and helped him with his rise to success. She is a model parent, having raised four children--Kevin, Terrence, Daniel, and Susan.

I am sharing Carol's story with this chamber today because she so strongly exemplifies model citizenship. Carol and her husband selflessly give of themselves to their community. They were surrogate parents for a disturbed teenager, who recovered completely from her problems after living with the Greiners in their home. Other testaments to her civic commitment include membership in Working for Downtown, Bethel Head Start Program (where she served on the Board of Directors), the League of Women Voters, and Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra (where she served on the Women's Committee).

I am privileged to know Mrs. Carol Greiner, and honored to consider her a friend. She is an asset to our community in Buffalo, and she stands as a shining example of a life lived in service to others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Nan Harvey.

Nan Harvey is the Associate Athletics Director at the University of Buffalo. She has been a softball umpire for 28 years, and has devoted her life to women's athletics.

Nan's accomplishments on the field are beyond impressive. As head coach of women's softball at the University of Buffalo, she led her team to 38 wins in next three years, earning State University of New York Athletic Conference Coach of the Year honors in 1985. In 1991, Nan was inducted into the Western New York Softball Hall of Fame. In 1996, she was named the Amateur Softball Association Metro Buffalo Umpire of the Year. Later that year, Nan was given one of the highest honors for an ASA umpire when she was inducted into

the National Indicator Fraternity of the Amateur Softball Hall of Fame. She's been an umpire for several national slow-pitch tournaments and the NCAA Division III National Championship for three years.

When I first began work on Title IX earlier this year, my office contacted Nan to find out more about the effects of Title IX at the University of Buffalo. She was enormously helpful and supportive in helping us lead the fight to save this fundamental civil rights law that ensures gender equality in athletic opportunities.

I was devastated to hear that Nan is currently battling ovarian cancer. She learned of her disease almost three years ago, and has been undergoing chemotherapy for 34 straight months. Her prognosis is still very uncertain, yet she fights this disease daily with grace and determination.

Let me tell you about the kind of person Nan Harvey is. Despite suffering chemotherapy treatments, she is still dedicated to University of Buffalo Athletics. She has dedicated a large portion of her life to her family at the University of Buffalo. I am deeply moved by Nan's decision regarding her estate. With her health in an uncertain state, Nan decided to bequeath to the University of Buffalo athletic department a minimum of $200,000 from her retirement funds. The money will be used with an emphasis on women's sports.

Her commitment to the University of Buffalo, and to female athletes, has inspired her colleagues, her students, and her community. In honor of everything that she has given to the school and to women's athletics, the University of Buffalo will be renaming its softball facility Nan Harvey Field.

I cannot express how deeply proud I am of Nan Harvey, of the life that she has led and the example she has set.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Pitts/Hyde amendment to H.R. 1298, the Global AIDS bill. The President's commitment to supporting Global AIDS outreach is commendable, and this bill, without amendments, has the approval of the Bush Administration. It is widely supported by Republicans and Democrats.

However, some of my colleagues want to ``improve'' this bill with a controversial amendment that further wages war against family planning and reproductive health. At the heart of my concern with the ``abstinence-only'' curricula is its insistence that a ``mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.'' This program emphasizes that sex outside of marriage is physically and psychologically harmful and should be avoided for these reasons.

Abstinence-only education is simply not effective. Many of the women who are infected with HIV/AIDS are in monogamous marital relationships. Abstinence education that elevates the marital relationship as the only place where sex is appropriate would still leave these women vulnerable to infection. Abstinence education would also ignore the needs of women involved in the sex trade. Prostitution is a reality in all parts of the world, and it is one of the most vicious vehicles for spreading diseases. The Pitts amendment would do nothing for these women and for the children they will bear.

Abstinence-only education has been proven to be ineffective time and time again, while only truly comprehensive sex education really prevents unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases. There is no scientific evidence that abstinence-only education is effective. Congress should not tie the hands of health care professionals as they attempt to stop the spread of AIDS.

This discussion is about more than promoting ``proper'' sexual behavior. This is a matter of life and death. We should not be willing to gamble with the lives of millions of men, women, and children across the globe.

It is pure common sense that if you are trying to prevent a disease, you apply the remedy that has been shown to work, rather than fueling millions of dollars into an idea that has been proven not to work. If what we care about is AIDS prevention, then we should put our money into programs, like the Ugandan ABC program, where it might actually be effective.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 155, 156, 157, and 158 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 158 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 155, 156, and 157.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 149, 150,

151, 152, 153, and 154 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 150 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 149, 151, 152, 153, and 154.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 146, 147, and 148 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 146, 147, and 148.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to agree that the United States does indeed need a coherent, comprehensive energy plan. The events of the summer of 2001 clearly illustrate this. The raging power prices and the rolling blackouts in California and the historic implosion of Enron vividly showed America that our energy policies are broken and need to be fixed.

A few weeks ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled that widespread manipulation and misconduct by Enron and 30 other energy companies and the failures of deregulation of the energy industry caused the energy crisis that plagued California in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not fix what is broken. H.R. 6 does not address any of the lessons learned from the California energy crisis.

The legislation does not provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with any antifraud authority. It does not criminalize the legal abuses by energy corporations that contributed to the California energy crisis.

Instead of providing stronger protections for consumers, the bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protects both consumers and investors. In fact, some have argued that proper enforcement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act could have prevented the Enron disaster.

The bill fails consumers, but it benefits the giant energy corporations.

When we are facing record deficits and tax cuts upwards of $700 billion, H.R. 6 gives the energy companies $18.7 billion in tax breaks and incentives without paying for them. It is something that we just simply do not do in Congress. Even the executive branch sought only $9 billion in tax incentives.

Examination of these tax breaks reveals that consumers lose again. The lion's share of this money goes to companies for energy production, and only one-third of the tax breaks are aimed at conservation and alternative fuels. Instead of putting so much money into pumping more oil, should not our goal be to reduce the country's dependence on oil?

Another windfall for energy companies is a generous royalty holiday. This legislation would waive royalty collections on large amounts of publicly owned oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. This amounts to a significant taxpayer subsidy of the oil and gas industry when there is no evidence that major oil companies, without the taxpayers' help, will abandon exploration in promising areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Additionally, this bill would allow companies to pay in-kind royalties to the Federal Government. According to the GAO findings, there is no evidence that in-kind royalties generate as much revenue as traditional cash payments. Again, the public loses, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) with her amendment to cure that was not allowed.

The environment and conservationists were also losers. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, recognizing it as an internationally important wildlife conservation area. This underlying area would allow leasing, exploration, and development of 1.6 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fortunately, we will be allowed a vote on a bipartisan amendment to preserve the current ban on drilling in ANWR.

Mr. Speaker, several important amendments to this bill were barred by the Committee on Rules. H.R. 6 abandons the bipartisan consensus reached in the previous Congress and adopts changes to the hydroelectric licensing process for the benefit of the hydropower industry at the expense of the environment and wildlife.

Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science, offered this agreement as a substitute amendment. Every Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, save one, voted for this amendment. However, the rule bars us from even considering the amendment.

It is also disappointing that an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the resources portion of H.R. 6 is not in order. The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, would, among other things, ensure that the American people receive just compensation from the development of oil and gas resources on Federal lands and waters.

Early this morning, the Committee on Rules, along party lines, refused to make in order an amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). This amendment would have the Secretary of Energy mitigate adverse and disproportionate effects that implementation of the energy bill may have on minority, rural, Native American, and other underserved communities.

This seems like common sense. I would hope that these factors would be taken into consideration anyway. It is disappointing that this body is denied the opportunity to discuss this most important issue.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a new and improved energy policy is great and the policy's effects ubiquitous. This is a major policy initiative that demands and deserves thorough deliberation. This special rule provides several hours of debate. In contrast, the other body has set aside 2 weeks for the consideration of energy policies.

Further, this rule only allows 29 percent of the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules to be offered on the floor. This is not, above all, this is not thorough deliberation.

For all of these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. Inslee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If I can take a moment first just to say to my good friend from California, and he is my good friend, that we are not sure that 10 minutes is sufficient for a full debate on ANWR; but, nonetheless, that was my only remark.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order all the Democratic amendments that were offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Fifty-five very responsible and thoughtful amendments were submitted by Democrats, but only 15 were made in order.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can add those amendments rejected by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the amendments be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time. I appreciate the time and a chance to speak this morning.

It is now our duty to make sure that we finance the war that presently is waging in Iraq. Many of our young soldiers, men and women, they are facing dangers every day. We have to finance the military operations of these men and these women, but our duty to the soldiers extends beyond the duration of the war in Iraq. Our duty requires us to increase funding to the Veterans Administration for there are veterans in the making right this very moment; and for the current veterans, we have let them down.

It is a terrible statistic to know that nationwide in the year 2002, almost 300,000 veterans were either placed on waiting lists or forced to wait for over 6 months in order to receive an appointment for necessary care. In New York State, 130,000 veterans could be denied the VA benefits or drop out of the system, including 30,000 veterans in western New York which I represent alone.

Now, as we have cut the budget already for the Veterans Administration, as we already have 300,000 veterans a year waiting just to get an appointment, what will happen when the veterans from Iraq come home? What will we say to them? We really appreciate your service. It was wonderful of you to go. I am sorry we have no way to give you medical treatment. Take a number and wait your turn.

We cannot as a Nation forget our obligation to these men and women and our promise always to care for them.

The rule passed by the Committee on Rules prohibits any amendments to increase funding for the Veterans Administration. In addition to that, the war has also greatly increased the threat of terrorism here at home. Our cities and towns must be prepared to act immediately should we have another terrorist threat or act. And our local police officers, firefighters, public health officials, medical professionals, and volunteers will be the first to respond. But we have not included sufficient funding for the local governments, the States, and the first responders.

The war has greatly increased the financial burden on local and State governments during a period of economic troubles when local and State governments are challenged by a budget crisis. It is our solemn duty to provide the financial support that these first responders require if we expect them to protect our constituents back home.

It is shameful that first responders and local governments have to beg for funding. The bill provides some funds for first responders but they need so much more than this bill provides, and the rule bars any amendment to increase the funding to the first responders.

Now, as I said, there is some money there, but not nearly enough to protect the ports that are critical to the United States' economy and to provide the necessary level of security in our borders. We must increase the funding of activities at our northern borders. Our friends in Canada are not the threat, Mr. Speaker.

In summary, let me say that this rule leaves a great deal to be desired and certainly does not do very much for the people fighting this war today.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972, about 30,000 women played college sports. Today, that number has increased by more than 500 percent.

In 1972, about 200,000 girls played high school sports. Today, that number has increased by more than 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that women and girls have more opportunity today than they did 30 years ago. That is not because they have more interest than they used to, and it is not because they have more ability than they used to. The increased opportunities are attributable to one law, Title IX.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the Federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. It states: ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.''

In essence, Title IX requires schools and colleges receiving Federal funds to give women and girls equal athletic opportunities, including athletic scholarships, equipment, coaching and facilities, among other benefits.

Unfortunately, Title IX has come under assault. Those who favor changing Title IX argue, mistakenly, that it has led to the disappearance of athletic opportunities for male athletes. While both sides of the debate over Title IX athletics policies agree that they should allow for gender parity and overall fairness in sports, the real question that begs to be answered is, what constitutes fairness?

For those who wanted to alter Title IX and how it has been implemented, fairness means that male athletes should have a monopoly over opportunities and resources for their programs, regardless of how underfunded or nonexistent similar programs for female athletes may be.

For these challengers to Title IX, it is fair that, while more women than men attend college, only 42 percent of all college athletes are women. For them, it is fair that females currently receive 1.1 million fewer, 41 percent, opportunities at the high school level and 58,000 fewer, 38 percent, opportunities at the college level than do their male counterparts.

This ill-conceived notion of fairness that opponents of Title IX put forth justifies the fact that men currently receive $133 million more than women in athletic scholarships. Division I-A colleges and universities allocate on average 71 percent of their scholarship money for men's athletics, and their recruiting dollars for male athletes double those spent on female athletes.

Opponents of Title IX charge that the law takes money and opportunities away from men's athletics. What these people fail to realize is that Title IX does not deprive men of athletic resources. The real problem is that the resources that male athletes receive are distributed inequitably among men's sports.

Take these statistics, for example. Football and men's basketball consume 72 percent of the total men's athletic operating budget at Division I institutions, leaving other men's sports to compete for the remaining funds.

Sixty-eight percent of the increased expenditures for men's Division I-A sports programs from 1998 to the Year 2000 went to football alone. The increase for football exceeded the entire operating budget for women's Division I sports in 2000 by over $1.69 million.

What is more, large football and basketball programs are not as revenue producing as Title IX proponents claim. The vast majority of NCAA football and men's basketball programs spend more money than they bring in. In fact, 64 percent of Division I and II football programs do not generate enough money to pay for themselves, much less any other sports. In 1999, these programs reported annual deficits averaging $1 million for Division I-A athletics.

Now, do not get me wrong, I love football, and I graduated from the University of Kentucky, so I love basketball. I just do not believe that our little girls should be denied the opportunity to play sports so that football teams can dip from a bottomless fount of funds.

Opponents of Title IX not only feel that this gross imbalance is fair, but they oppose any efforts to salvage the progress that has been made. It bothers me deeply that opponents of Title IX say that male athletes are treated unfairly. Although 30 years of progress since Title IX have seen sports participation for males and females grow, female athletes are still not treated equitably.

I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor House Resolution 137, expressing the sense of Congress that changes to Title IX athletic policies contradict the spirit of athletic equality and gender parity and should not be implemented and that Title IX should be kept intact.

My resolution has been signed by both Republicans and Democrats, by men and women.

It is receiving this wide support for one simple reason: it is the right thing to do. Most Americans know that it is the right thing to do. A Gallup poll in early January reported that seven out of 10 adults who understood the law supported keeping title IX intact and rejecting any changes. In fact, a Wall Street Journal poll from January found that 66 percent of Americans go so far as to favor cutting men's teams

in order to ensure equal athletics opportunities for women.

Any changes to title IX must be rejected on their face because tinkering with the law in any way implies that title IX does not work and that it needs improvement.

I come from the ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it'' school; and, Mr. Speaker, title IX is not broken. Title IX has been the dam that holds back gender discrimination in educational programs for 30 years, allowing millions of young women the opportunity to pursue goals of which their predecessors, including me, could only dream.

I am standing here to defend the integrity of this landmark civil rights law because it is the right thing to do, but I also rise in honor of my dear friend and beloved colleague, Patsy Mink. In 1972 Patsy helped to enact title IX and in honor of her valiant work, Congress renamed title IX the ``Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act.'' She would be standing right here beside me if she were alive today. She struggled for 30 years to protect educational equity for men and women, and it is the memory of the beautiful legacy that she left behind that we must not give up on the fight to preserve equality for women.

Opponents of title IX are trying to redefine what America sees as fair. As a consistent defender of gender equality and protection of equal rights for all of our citizens, male and female, I am outraged by this particular brand of fairness. Patsy would have been outraged as well, and she would not have tolerated it.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me with our Republican and Democratic friends who support this legislation as we all fight to preserve the integrity of this landmark law. Please cosponsor this title IX resolution for Patsy Mink, for our Nation's girls, and for the sake of equality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a tireless fighter for gender equity.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote Nos. 65, 66, and 67 due to my attendance at the funeral for former Rochester Mayor Thomas P. Ryan, Jr. and traffic jams caused by the standoff with Mr. Watson on the Mall in Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 65, 66, and 67. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

H. Con. Res. 26, rollcall No. 65, ``aye.''

H.R. 868, rollcall No. 66, ``aye.''

H. Res. 109, rollcall No. 67, ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to improve the Bankruptcy Code by ensuring fairness for debtors and creditors. Unfortunately, this bill envisions fairness as choosing credit card companies over people in dire financial situations. This bill attempts to solve a complex problem with an oversimplified, one-size-fits-all solution when the problem really requires a sophisticated solution.

The rhetoric around H.R. 975 paints a vivid picture of scheming people running up huge debts, buying extravagant houses and expensive cars just before they run to a local bankruptcy court to avoid paying their bills, but the reality is that only 3 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy are these kinds of cheaters.

In order to stop the 3 percent who abuse the system, the bill takes the dramatic sweeping step of harming the 97 percent of people who are forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code because of illnesses, unemployment or divorce. In fact, nearly half the people who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of medical bills and the financial consequences of illness or injury.

Middle-class families are only one serious illness away from financial collapse, and the impact of medical cost is highest on women, families headed by women and older people.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most forceful and persistent proponents of changing the Federal Bankruptcy Code is the credit card industry. We all know that credit card companies send us solicitations by the boatload. They mailed 5 billion of them in 2001. Each of us get three or four a day. They flood the mailboxes with credit card offers and encourage debt, and it is very hard to sympathize with these companies. They are actively, actively creating the problems that they now want this body to fix for them.

Why does this legislation do nothing to address the culpability of credit card companies in the growing numbers of bankruptcies? Nothing in this legislation requires credit card companies to provide adequate information to consumers about the costs of credit. Nothing in the bill addresses the industry's aggressive marketing of credit to students and to young teenagers. Nothing in this bill deals with predatory mortgage loans or the high costs of so-called payday loans.

Douglas Lustig, a bankruptcy attorney in my hometown of Rochester, New York, says that people are not abusing credit cards for extravagances. Rather, he says, most people use credit cards out of necessity. People are forced to use their credit cards to buy food or pay for rent until they get through difficult economic times, and what really breaks my heart is that as unemployment rates rise, this Congress has failed to extend the unemployment benefits in so many households. This is the only recourse that they have. Then if something awful happens to them, and the wife is laid off or the husband diagnosed with cancer, the family then is totally unable to meet its financial burdens, and this bill chooses to make sure that the credit card companies get paid instead of protecting the families and helping them dig out of financial collapse.

What do bankruptcy judges think about this legislation? Judge A. Thomas Small, who recently served as president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges and now is chairing the Federal Bankruptcy Rules Committee, sees problems. He says this measure will fail to block needless bankruptcy cases while making it a lot harder for people who really need bankruptcy relief to get it.

Despite the many years that bankruptcy reform has been discussed by this body, many serious problems persist in this legislation. The rule before this body gags us and limits our right to speak fully about the significant legislation and its real-world effects. Republicans in the House Committee on Rules blocked the consideration of six substantive amendments to this bill. This body has the right to discuss them, to deliberate and to consider the changes they offer.

One amendment would protect the Active Duty members of the Armed Forces, unemployed people who have exhausted their benefits, and victims of terrorism. Another would have prohibited credit card companies from issuing cards to people under the age of 21. A third amendment would place a $125,000 national cap on the homestead exemption without any of the exceptions allowed in the underlying bill. Still another would place reasonable limits on exorbitant retention bonuses, the severance package and other payments to corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or facing bankruptcy. A fifth amendment would crack down on the predatory lending practice known as payday lending.

An amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself would give bankruptcy courts the discretion to provide extra protection for people entitled to alimony or child support, a piece of legislation that we put in back in the days when Jack Brooks was chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. Many of us worked very hard at that time to make sure that child support was the first thing that a spouse had to or person who was paying the

support had to discharge. That has changed now.

The reform legislation elevates the credit card companies to the same categories of child support. Mothers and fathers who are trying to get money for food and clothes for their children will have to compete with the major credit card companies with their legions of lawyers and sophisticated collection departments for the same few dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter this list of amendments left on the floor of the room of the Committee on Rules into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 even fails to hold perpetrators of violence against women's health care clinics accountable for their actions. As part of a coordinated strategy, perpetrators of clinic violence have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying judgments against them for violation of Federal law. This bill will allow them to discharge these judgments and get away with breaking Federal law and trampling the constitutional rights of women.

This rule and this legislation fail the American people. Years of consideration have not produced bankruptcy reform that the American people deserve, reform that fixes the current problems with a system without causing significantly more harm than this prevents.

Mr. Speaker, we should produce legislation that strikes a balance between risk-taking and responsibility and shelters that 97 percent who deserve the Federal protection. I urge Members to vote against this rule and against H.R. 975.

The previously mentioned list of amendments follows:

Amendments Rejected by the House Rules Committee During Consideration of H. Res. 147, The Rule Governing Debate on H.R. 975, The Bankruptcy

Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the

amendment places a $125,000 national cap on the homestead

exemption, without any of the exceptions allowed in the

underlying bill.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Representative Delahunt--the

amendment places reasonable limits on exorbitant ``retention

bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to

corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or facing

bankruptcy.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Representative Jackson-Lee--the

amendment cracks down on the predatory lending practice known

as ``payday lending.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Representative Waters--the

amendment prohibits credit card companies from issuing cards

to people under 21 years of age.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Representative Schakowsky--the

amendment excludes unemployed people who have exhausted their

benefits, active duty members of the armed forces, and

victims of terrorism from the bill's means test provisions.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Representatives Conyers,

Slaughter, and Jackson-Lee--the amendment gives courts the

discretion to disapprove an agreement or the discharge of a

debt if it would impair a debtor's ability to pay alimony or

child support.

Open Rule Motion Offered by Representative Frost--on a

party-line vote of 3-9, the Committee rejected Mr. Frost's

motion that the House consider H.R. 975 under an open rule,

which would have allowed the House to debate all of the

amendments Members brought before the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a little history, if I may. I have worked through three legislatures trying to do something about children under the poverty line, the vast majority of them there because alimony was not paid. Indeed, we had a whole phraseology, the deadbeat dad, concerning ourselves with children who had no recourse. We tried a lot of remedies on the county and State levels, and some worked pretty well. But the best thing we did was 9 years ago, we went to the Committee on the Judiciary under Jack Brooks and asked him to make certain that child support took precedence over other debts, including credit cards.

Mr. Speaker, it has made a massive difference in the economic status of children who are the sorrowful price of divorce. For 9 years it has worked well, and I want to say that 9 years ago it was bipartisan, and I think there was not a voice spoken against this raised in the House of Representatives. But suddenly now 9 years later, we decide that credit card companies are more important than our children and where they are going to be able to eat and wear clothes and have a roof over their head.

Mr. Speaker, this matters to a lot of us. Children are going to suffer if credit cards takes precedence over all other debts. I doubt there was a deadbeat dad. I used to think there was someone struggling out there who had to pay his credit card first before he could help out his children. For heaven's sake, let us not go back to that. It has worked for 9 years. It will not hurt the bill. Do not give credit cards the last word in the United States as to who gets to eat. It is outrageous when it comes to children and people who are totally dependent that may have to be sitting about waiting until after the credit card companies, which make enormous amounts of money with their large interest, get taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the debates that has gone on for many years and it has always been characterized as a debate between physicians and lawyers, leaving out one of the major players in all of these problems, the insurance industry.

This health care act is wrongly named. It is the wrong prescription for curing any malady in medical malpractice insurance. The proponents want to claim jury awards for rising insurance premiums. But a study by Americans for Insurance Reform reported that rising insurance premiums are not tied to jury awards.

Let me for a moment talk about how an insurance company meets a lawsuit that is filed against it. The money that is asked for in that bill is set aside in a separate pot of money as though they

had lost the suit. Of course, only about one of nine of those cases is ever brought to court, but that large pot of money still exists over there for the insurance company, on which they pay a very low rate of taxes. They should be a major player here.

Wait until your doctors hear back home that what we have done here today, because I am sure it is going to pass, will not do a thing in the world about lowering their insurance premiums. There is no mention in here that insurance companies of any sort will have to give back money to the physicians or to lower their rates. They are probably not going to give up anything out of that large pot they have had all of these years, and which we have no right, because the Federal Government has no oversight over insurance, to see what is there.

One of the most egregious things in this legislation and this debate is we have been told over and over that 5 percent of the physicians in the United States are responsible for more than 55 percent of the lawsuits. Would you not think that the sensible thing to do would be to get rid of that 5 percent? If this law passes, the 5 percent still continued to create malpractice, have bad outcomes on their patients. The only difference after this bill is passed is that patients will have no recourse at all.

The caps are really extensive. There is no recourse. And in addition, one more thing I would say. Not only are the insurance companies protected, but also the people who manufacture medical devices, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies. It is very far-reaching and will do nothing to lower premiums.