Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. President, I am pleased that both chambers of Congress passed the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act this week.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of women in this country receive the diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast cancer will strike approximately 1 in 8 American women in her lifetime, with a new case diagnosed every 2 minutes.

We have made remarkable progress in the area of breast cancer, but we still do not know what causes breast cancer. Scientists have identified some risk factors, but those factors help explain fewer than 30 percent of cases.

The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would help to establish a national strategy to study the potential links between the environment and breast cancer and would authorize funding for such research. The resulting discoveries could be critical to improving our knowledge of this complex illness, which could lead to new treatments and perhaps, one day, a cure.

Too many women have wanted too long for this legislation to become law. Since former Senator Lincoln Chafee and I first introduced legislation in 2000, it is estimated that 2 million women have been diagnosed with breast cancer and almost 300,000 have died. One of these women, a lifelong Nevadan named Deanna Jensen, championed this legislation and stayed in regular contact with my staff, even while enduring a grueling regimen of radiation and chemotherapy. Sadly, Deanna Jensen lost her battle with cancer on January 7, 2007.

Last session, I had hoped that this legislation would finally become a reality. It was reported out of the Senate HELP Committee, and despite overwhelming bipartisan support for this legislation, the Republican majority would not schedule floor time to consider this bill. On several occasions, I tried to pass this legislation by unanimous consent, but with every attempt, one Senator objected and prevented the Senate from passing this important legislation.

This year, thanks to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions-- HELP--Committee Chairman Kennedy's leadership and that of Senators Clinton and Hatch, the Senate HELP Committee reported this bill favorably. However, the minority continued to object to our efforts to pass this legislation by unanimous consent. On more than one occasion, I proposed that we consider this legislation under a time agreement that would have permitted a reasonable number of germane amendments and a recorded vote on the bill. Those offers were also rejected, in spite of the fact that over two-thirds of the members of the Senate were cosponsors of this bill.

Over the past several months, this legislation has been the focus of negotiations between the bill sponsors in both chambers and those members whose strong concerns have prevented this legislation from advancing for so long. The resulting compromise is a strong step in the right direction and will finally set us on the path towards obtaining a better understanding of the relationship between the development of breast cancer and the environment. I am pleased that we were able to pass this legislation this week and hope the President will sign it into law without further delay.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1157) to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to make grants for the development and operation of research centers regarding environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of breast cancer, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1157, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, legislation introduced by Representatives Nita Lowey and Sue Myrick.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, breast cancer is the second most common form of cancer in women. Each

year in America, approximately 182,000 women are diagnosed of breast cancer, of which nearly 41,000 lose their lives.

While improved access to screening and treatment services have helped reduced breast cancer death rates over the past couple of decades, significant challenges still remain. For example, we are still unsure about what causes breast cancer or how to prevent it. While there have been a number of studies that have looked at various risk factors, we have not been able to draw any solid conclusions about what specifically causes breast cancer or what are the linkages between breast cancer and environmental factors.

This legislation would help address, help facilitate and help coordinate research efforts on the links between breast cancer and environmental factors in the hopes that one day we might find a cure.

Let me acknowledge the work of my colleagues, Mrs. Lowey and Mrs. Myrick, who have been tireless advocates on behalf of this legislation. They have been working nonstop over the past several months to develop the compromise legislation before us today.

I would also like to commend the chairman of our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, as well as his staff, for their hard work on this legislation. In particular I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Jessica McNiece, a member of the professional staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee, for her efforts to move this bill forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who, as everyone has said, has worked so hard and tirelessly on behalf of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would ask that we all support this very important legislation. I know that it constantly comes up in my State about possible links between breast cancer and various cancers and environmental risk, so I know how important this is. I ask that everyone support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we return from Mother's Day weekend, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 1157, the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

This weekend we honored our mothers and grandmothers and the immense contributions they have made in our lives. As we celebrate these women, we should also take the opportunity to renew our focus and efforts on an issue that affects far too many women in the United States: breast cancer.

There are more than three million women currently living with breast cancer, and each year tens of thousands of women die from the disease. While we have made important progress in treatments and research, we still do not know what causes breast cancer or how to prevent it. And the alarming nature of these uncertainties is compounded by the fact breast cancer rates are on the rise. A woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing invasive breast cancer in her lifetime-- this risk was only 1 in 11 in 1975.

While it is generally believed the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, scientific evidence about the extent of its role is minimal. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence, and they cannot be translated into real ways in which women can better protect themselves.

The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act will create a competitive, peer-reviewed research program at the National Institutes of Health to study the potential links between breast cancer and the environment. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors, and there are many understudied factors suspected to play a role that could be valuable in understanding the causes of breast cancer. H.R. 1157 will start a collaborative, comprehensive and national strategy to study these issues.

I proudly stand in support of the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act. I hope you will join me in cosponsoring this important, bipartisan investment in breast cancer research.