Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2007

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Wolf for raising this. I didn't know he was going to be doing it; I just saw him on the television.

So I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Let me just say, to clarify the record, this legislation, which would seek to lay bare the science about Lyme disease, the fact that I believe we do have an epidemic, the fact that Lyme often go misdiagnosed, underdiagnosed. It is called ``the great pretender'' because so many people have it and don't know it. It often masquerades as other kinds of anomalies manifesting in a person's body. And it is not until it gets to a chronic state--very often causing severe disability, including neurological damage--that people finally realize that they have Lyme disease.

There has been, unfortunately, a significant, I believe, cover up of the fact that chronic Lyme exists. The gentleman knows, we have asked him repeatedly, the gentleman from New Jersey, my good friend, Mr. Pallone, this legislation has been pending in his subcommittee. He told Pat Smith--no relation to me--who runs a Lyme disease association, that this would get a hearing and would be marked up. It has not been marked up. And meanwhile, this epidemic is growing--it is exploding.

Now, let me just say for the enlightenment of my colleagues; the Infectious Disease Society of America,

which creates--and often does a very laudable job--the definitions, the parameters of what constitutes a certain disease, has looked at Lyme and said that chronic Lyme does not exist. Many of us have raised serious concerns about that because of what we believe to be conflicts of interest on the part of the panel members that made up the Lyme panel.

I would note parenthetically that Chris Dodd is the prime sponsor of the comparison legislation that I've introduced on the House side. We have worked cooperatively on the legislation, so we have a companion bill on the Senate side. The legislation has over 110--I think it's 112--cosponsors, totally bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans alike rallying around this legislation.

The problem with the Infectious Disease Society of America is that these conflicts of interest, we believe, resulted in the conclusion that chronic Lyme doesn't exist. We don't know absolutely if that's the truth, but Attorney General Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut finally took a look at this and came back with a scathing insightful report that there were conflicts of interest. The red flag should go up everywhere.

What does my legislation do? As Mr. Pallone knows, the legislation does not prescribe a protocol, as he has suggested. It simply calls for an advisory committee that would take a good, long look at Lyme disease and determine what is fact and fiction, and finally, for the sake of all of those who are suffering immensely from this disease and their families, say what we need to be doing to mitigate and hopefully stop the spread of Lyme, whether it be long-term and very heavy antibiotic treatment--which I believe probably is the case based on clinical practitioners who have suggested that to be the case--but we want an honest look.

As Mr. Pallone knows, we did not get an honest look from the Infectious Disease Society of America. And I find that appalling. Conflict of interest with insurance companies has no place in modern medicine. And regrettably, and it has been--again, the full weight of the Attorney General's report clearly suggests, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, that there were significant conflicts of interest on the part of the panel members.

Our legislation says let's go where the science takes us. If the science says chronic Lyme exists, then all those patients and the insurance companies which need to be providing the coverage, to get the medicines and the like, like antibiotics--because what has happened, as my friend knows, because of this exclusion of chronic Lyme due to a problem in definition, the insurance companies say we don't have to pay. So when a patient presents with a bill of $100,000 or some excessive amount of money, the insurance companies say, not us, tough luck, we're not going to pay for it. And they go right back to what I believe to be a false definition that precludes chronic Lyme as a condition.

Now, you might think that chronic Lyme doesn't exist, I say to my friend, the chairman, but let's go where the science takes us. We need this advisory committee and we need it now. All points of view, as our legislation clearly suggests, has to be a part of this group. We want a robust debate, not something that is engineered by insurance companies.

Finally, the legislation would authorize $100 million over 5 years, $20 million each year. Frankly, if that drops off due to opposition to new authorization, and is only an authorization, I would like to see it go forward nevertheless, know this however, we're not spending enough on Lyme.

And Lyme is, as Mr. Wolf said so aptly, growing exponentially. CDC admits we are missing most of the cases. As many as 90 percent of the cases go unreported. Our state, Mr. Pallone, as you know, is number three in prevalence according to CDC numbers, and even that is probably very much understated in terms of the actual prevalence of Lyme disease.

So I would make the appeal again, as I have made to my friend from New Jersey, as I have made to Mr. Dingell, as I have made to Mr. Barton and everyone else, this legislation ought to be on this floor and it ought to be on the floor today. It is truly bipartisan. There ought to be a consensus to go where the science takes us. And again, an advisory committee, a Blue Ribbon panel that would be configured under this legislation would finally end, hopefully, this contentious debate and tell us what it is and what it is not.

I have known dozens of people who have had chronic Lyme. Now, you might say it doesn't exist, the Infectious Disease Society says it doesn't exist. These victims suffer from the spirochete, and have suffered neurological damage, severe joint damage, and many, many other problems.

There is a new book called ``Cure Unknown'' that I would recommend to the House. I read it in one sitting because it is so incisive in finally breaking through the fog on this disease. People are walking around with Lyme and they don't even know it.

We need to bring the forces to bear of the U.S. Government that an advisory committee of this kind would do a Blue Ribbon panel, a 9/11- type panel of scientists, of the best people we can put together to say, put aside the egregiously flawed Infectious Diseases Society of America's finding, which Blumenthal said was riddled with conflict of interest--and I urge Members to read Blumenthal's opinion, I will put it in the Record so Members can read it--his findings were, ``atrocious, conflict of interest everywhere.''

This legislation ought to be on the floor and it ought to be on the floor today.

Office of the Attorney General,

Hartford, Connecticut, May 1, 2008.

Attorney General's Investigation Reveals Flawed Lyme Disease Guideline

Process, IDSA Agrees To Reassess Guidelines, Install Independent

Arbiter

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced that

his antitrust investigation has uncovered serious flaws in

the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) process

for writing its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines and the IDSA has

agreed to reassess them with the assistance of an outside

arbiter.

The IDSA guidelines have sweeping and significant impacts

on Lyme disease medical care. They are commonly applied by

nsurance companies in restricting coverage for long-term

antibiotic treatment or other medical care and also strongly

influence physician treatment decisions.

Insurance companies have denied coverage for long-term

antibiotic treatment relying on these guidelines as

justification. The guidelines are also widely cited for

conclusions that chronic Lyme disease is nonexistent.

``This agreement vindicates my investigation--finding

undisclosed financial interests and forcing a reassessment of

IDSA guidelines,'' Blumenthal said. ``My office uncovered

undisclosed financial interests held by several of the most

powerful IDSA panelists. The IDSA's guideline panel

improperly ignored or minimized consideration of alternative

medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme disease,

potentially raising serious questions about whether the

recommendations reflected all relevant science.

``The IDSA's Lyme guideline process lacked important

procedural safeguards requiring complete reevaluation of the

2006 Lyme disease guidelines--in effect a comprehensive

reassessment through a new panel. The new panel will accept

and analyze all evidence, including divergent opinion. An

independent neutral ombudsman--expert in medical ethics and

conflicts of interest, selected by both the IDSA and my

office--will assess the new panel for conflicts of interests

and ensure its integrity.''

Blumenthal's findings include the following: The IDSA

failed to conduct a conflicts of interest review for any of

the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme

disease guideline panel;

Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of the 2006

Lyme disease panelists had conflicts of interest;

The IDSA failed to follow its own procedures for appointing

the 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman,

who held a bias regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to

handpick a likeminded panel without scrutiny by or formal

approval of the IDSA's oversight committee;

The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to

accept or meaningfully consider information regarding the

existence of chronic Lyme disease, once removing a panelist

from the 2000 panel who dissented from the group's position

on chronic Lyme disease to achieve ``consensus'';

The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians

with divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on

the 2006 guidelines panel by informing them that the panel

was fully staffed, even though it was later expanded;

The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme

disease guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that

the two panels shared several authors, including the chairmen

of both groups, and were working on guidelines at the same

time. In allowing its panelists to serve on both groups at

the same time, IDSA violated its own conflicts of interest

policy.

IDSA has reached an agreement with Blumenthal's office

calling for creation of a review panel to thoroughly

scrutinize the 2006 Lyme disease guidelines and update or

revise them if necessary. The panel--comprised of individuals

without conflicts of interest--will comprehensively review

medical and scientific evidence and hold a scientific hearing

to provide a forum for additional evidence. It will then

determine whether each recommendation in 2006 Lyme disease

guidelines is justified by the evidence or needs revision or

updating.

Blumenthal added, ``The IDSA's 2006 Lyme disease guideline

panel undercut its credibility by allowing individuals with

financial interests--in drug companies, Lyme disease

diagnostic tests, patents and consulting arrangements with

insurance companies--to exclude divergent medical evidence

and opinion. In today's healthcare system, clinical practice

guidelines have tremendous influence on the marketing of

medical services and products, insurance reimbursements and

treatment decisions. As a result, medical societies that

publish such guidelines have a legal and moral duty to use

exacting safeguards and scientific standards.

``Our investigation was always about the IDSA's guidelines

process--not the science. IDSA should be recognized for its

cooperation and agreement to address the serious concerns

raised by my office. Our agreement with IDSA ensures that a

new, conflicts-free panel will collect and review all

pertinent information, reassess each recommendation and make

necessary changes.

``This Action Plan--incorporating a conflicts screen by an

independent neutral expert and a public hearing to receive

additional evidence--can serve as a model for all medical

organizations and societies that publish medical guidelines.

This review should strengthen the public's confidence in such

critical standards.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3560) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide additional funds for the qualifying individual (QI) program, and for other purposes.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3560, the QI Program Supplemental Funding Act of 2008, introduced by my Senate colleague, Senator Max Baucus.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a number of technical, but important, changes that will improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This legislation also contains an important provision that will help incentivize the development of new antibiotics.

Earlier this summer, Congress passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which extended the Qualifying Individual, or QI, program to December of 2009. The QI program provides important financial assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

Unfortunately, when we passed H.R. 6331, we did not include enough money in the QI program to fully cover the level of need. We need an additional $45 million in order to fully cover the cost of the program through the end of next year. Otherwise, vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries may be disenrolled and lose access to important health services, and we certainly can't allow this to happen.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also contains a provision that would encourage and incentivize drug manufacturers to research and develop antibiotics. Presently, there's too little research being done to develop new and innovative antibiotics therapies. That is particularly troubling at a time when antibiotic resistance is a growing problem.

According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year, and 90,000 die as a result. Approximately 70 percent of these infections are resistant to at least one drug.

Mr. Speaker, the R&D pipeline for antibiotics is drying up. Major pharmaceutical companies simply are not investing in the development of new antibiotics because it's not as profitable as drugs that treat chronic conditions. This is an important provision that I believe will help reverse that trend and lead to new breakthroughs and help protect the public health.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these two provisions, the bill before us contains several other technical changes that would improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs and generate savings.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Mr. Stark.

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

Well, as I've discussed with the gentleman, because we have actually talked about this on several occasions, I believe we are now doing what we call consent bills, in other words, bills that have the consent, meaning are basically agreed to not only by the Democrats and Republicans, but also by the members of the subcommittee and the Members of the House in general, because as you know, you have to have a two-thirds vote to pass these bills or do them by unanimous consent.

We do not have anything near consensus on that legislation. It would have to go through regular order, have a hearing, go through subcommittee. The problem is that many, probably the majority, but I won't venture to say whether it's majority or minority, but many people do not agree with the protocol, if you will, that is suggested, if not mandated, by that legislation.

In other words, right now, the majority of the doctors treat Lyme disease, you know, in a certain fashion. Those who advocate for that legislation suggest a different protocol, and frankly, I have tried very hard as chairman of the Health Subcommittee not to mandate or make decisions for physicians as to what kind of protocols they use. In this case, the protocol is very different from the overwhelming majority of the doctors, and so it's a very controversial issue that needs to have a lot of debate.

So there's absolutely no way that we could do something like that on a consent calendar because many of the Members simply don't support it.

Well, we could certainly have hearings on it, and as I discussed with the gentleman, I would like to have hearings not only on that bill but on the issue of Lyme disease, research and treatment, and we will certainly do that in the next session. But we're obviously not doing this today in the context of a consent calendar.

What I said is I would like to have hearings on the issue related to Lyme. We can certainly take up the issues that are raised in that legislation in the context of that, but as I would say to the gentleman again, the protocol in that legislation is very controversial. It's certainly one of the many things that we would have to consider in the context of research and treatment of Lyme disease.

Well, I would just say this: You know, it does bother me because the gentleman is sort of suggesting that you and I haven't had conversations about this. We've actually had many conversations about this. I've told you the same thing I've just said here on the floor. And I really don't understand why the gentleman is giving the impression that somehow we haven't discussed this because we have.

Would the gentleman yield?

First of all, I resent the fact that the gentleman is suggesting that we ``boxed this up.'' I would point out to the gentleman that the problem of Lyme disease has been around for many years. And the gentleman and his committee, Appropriations Committee, were in the majority for, what, at least 12 years before the last 2 years that the Democrats have been in the majority? Certainly, the gentleman had plenty of opportunity, and still does, to do something about this himself.

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

I would just point out that on this and so many other issues it is amazing to me that the gentleman, who was in the majority for so many years and had so many opportunities to raise this and other issues, is somehow now suggesting that the Democrats are boxing it up. You know, Lyme has been around for a long time. The people concerned about this issue have been trying to address it for a long time. The bottom line, as the gentleman knows, it's a very controversial issue. We will certainly raise it, but he had ample opportunity, the many years that he was in the majority, to raise it and it just didn't happen.

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

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

First of all, I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, he has made a lot of statements about my views on this subject which are simply not true, and I do not appreciate them.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of yielding to the gentleman because of the disrespect that he has shown.

Now, secondly, let me also say this: I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has, on several occasions, come up to me in the last few months and talked to me about this legislation. And we've had very reasoned conversations about the legislation. But I will also point out that the gentleman from New Jersey has not. The gentleman from New Jersey has not spoken to me at all about this legislation, and certainly not, in my recollection, in the last year. So if he felt it was so important, the way the gentleman from Virginia did, and has, he certainly had many opportunities to come up to me and talk to me about it. He has not. And I see the gentleman from New Jersey all the time--on the floor, at home, on various occasions. He has not spoken to me.

So I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for at least saying that he has taken the time, had some reasoned discussions about it. That is not true of my colleague from New Jersey, which is why I deeply resent the fact that he's on the floor here today talking about it because it is the first time I recollect him ever talking to me about it.

Now, let me say a few other things. First of all, as far as the science is concerned, the science is in the Infectious Diseases Society and the CDC, not with the Attorney General and some political grandstanding that he's doing in Connecticut, nor with my colleague from New Jersey who is grandstanding here today.

I am very concerned about Lyme disease. I have been working with the CDC to address the issue. We are awaiting answers from the agency on how best to address this. I have, in fact, talked to many of my constituents about this, even though my own colleague hasn't talked to me about it from New Jersey.

And I also would like to say this: As far as the Infectious Diseases Association, they basically are the majority opinion. Many doctors, including my neighbors who are physicians in my hometown, very much agree with the Infectious Diseases Society and don't think that this should be treated with these antibiotics for a long period of time because they're concerned about the impact on people and whether they would be seriously injured or even die from the antibiotics.

There is a lot of controversy that involves this issue. It is very involved and it is very controversial. It shouldn't be considered today on a consent calendar. And that was the only point I was trying to make for my colleague from Virginia, that we need to have hearings. And we will have hearings on the issue in general, and we can include this bill as part of that in the next session. But to bring this up today on the consent calendar when they know very well that there is not agreement on this and we couldn't possibly get a UC or have this on the suspension calendar, it's really very upsetting, and particularly coming from my colleague from New Jersey, who has never talked to me about this at all.

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

I was watching this meeting and resolution in my office today, and I support it. I think it's a good issue, but I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I don't understand why you've boxed up for months and years the bill that Congressman Chris Smith has that deals with Lyme disease.

I was at a national Lyme disease conference this week. Lyme disease is spreading through our Nation. Lyme disease is spreading through my congressional district. Lyme disease is spreading through New Jersey, spreading through the gentleman's district, spreading through Mr. Smith's district, and if I could get the gentleman's attention, rather than whispering back and forth, I would like to know, if we are going to do resolutions like this and take them out of the committee, why Mr. Smith's bill, which has been pending in your committee for a long time, cannot be considered?

If you watched the movie the other day, the number of people that have been impacted by Lyme disease is very serious. This is spreading. It's in Pennsylvania, I would tell the person who's chairing the House. It is spreading throughout the United States, and yet the bill is boxed up, locked up in your committee, and I want to know, because I've had enough of seeing this thing and seeing it go time after time after time, and you're keeping the bill from coming out.

So if I could yield to the gentleman to tell me, what do you plan on doing about Lyme disease? Why won't you get that bill out? What is the status of it? And what would we tell somebody who happens to have Lyme disease today to know that the bill is pending in the committee?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, why hasn't the gentleman had hearings on it?

Reclaiming my time, I will take you at your word that you're going to have hearings, is that accurate, early in the year?

Reclaiming my time, we're not going to let this issue go away, I want to tell the gentleman from New Jersey, even if I have to come up into New Jersey and go throughout to say that this bill is being boxed up.

Just so Members know, instances of Lyme disease are rapidly rising in Virginia, not only in my congressional district but across the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1993 to 2007, reported cases of Lyme in Virginia have risen 990 percent, and this committee has done nothing. In the same time frame, reported cases are up 235 percent nationwide.

Lyme disease is frightening, keeps the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts from camping during summer months or children playing in the backyard or joggers on bike paths through tree-lined neighborhoods, sharing the outdoors with a minute insect that can bring monumental health problems.

Congress needs to get serious. I was watching this and I think you have boxed it up. You know, when the gentleman was speaking--if you could look at me, I would just appreciate it. I want to tell the gentleman that we're going to hold you to this with regard to hearings. I will come and testify, but if this issue is boxed up next year, we're going to deal with it in many ways.

I would ask unanimous consent--if you want to say something, I'll wait.

Reclaiming my time, I never said--we've discussed it twice. What I'm saying is that you've boxed the bill up, you've boxed Chris Smith's bill up. You've held no hearings. And there are a lot of people around the country that are suffering with Lyme disease. And you appear to be the rail block. And so what we're asking for is hearings, and give us an opportunity for all people of all sides to be heard.

I would yield.

Reclaiming my time, I was going to offer the Chris Smith amendment to the appropriations bill.

The Appropriations Committee hasn't met and had any hearings for months. Your side has prohibited any amendments from being offered. But I will tell the gentleman, next year, if you don't move this bill, I am going to offer it to the Labor-H bill next year and we will have to deal with it on the floor.

I believe we have a responsibility to address an issue that is wreaking havoc in my district and across the country. That's the rapid rise in Lyme disease and there is a bill pending in the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee that could go a long way towards helping raise awareness about the threat of Lyme.

Just this week I went to a briefing sponsored by the National Capital Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Association. People are suffering from Bell's palsy, meningitis and other manifestations from Lyme disease.

There are people in my district whose entire nuclear family suffers from chronic Lyme: Young men and women who have had to take medical leave from their college studies to battle severe joint pain and bleeding ulcers, once healthy people unable to dress themselves or tie their shoes; and folks hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just trying to get some quality of life back for their loved ones.

Americans need to learn about Lyme and press their Federal legislator to act. It is unacceptable--an outrage--for Congress to ignore this issue.

This past August I held a Lyme disease awareness forum in my district in Loudoun County, Virginia, to help my constituents learn how to prevent Lyme disease from touching their families. Three medical doctors, including two county health departments, volunteered their time to share their expertise in Lyme-related issues.

Lyme disease is an illness caused by bacteria that are transmitted to people by the bite of an infected black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, which is comparable in size to the tip of a ball point pen. With all of the natural beauty and outdoor activities in many of the congressional districts we represent, it's important we work to educate our constituents about this debilitating disease.

Speaking as a father of five and grandfather of 13, I worry about deer, mice, and even family pets transporting ticks and transmitting Lyme.

Incidents of Lyme disease are rising rapidly in Virginia and across the country. According to the Centers for disease Control and Prevention, from 1993 to 2007 reported cases of Lyme in Virginia have risen 909 percent. In that same time frame, reported cases are up 235 percent nationwide.

Lyme disease is frightening. Picture Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts camping during the summer months or children playing in the backyard, or joggers on bike paths through tree-lined neighborhoods--sharing the outdoors with a minute insect that can bring monumental health problems.

This Congress needs to get serious about stepping up to the plate, and making sure people in high risk areas are aware of this threat. H.R. 741--The Lyme and Tick-Borne disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act--legislation introduced by Chris Smith with a host of original cosponsors from New York, Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Rhode Island, Washington, among others, now has collected well over 100 bipartisan cosponsors.

The bill, which would expand Federal efforts with respect to prevention, education, and research activities, will go a long way toward getting the word out about Lyme disease and the precautions people can take to ensure that they never have to suffer the consequences of chronic Lyme.

``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' could not be a more appropriate adage for Lyme disease. Failure to recognize Lyme disease early in its course can result in the development of difficult to treat infections in the brain, eyes, joints, heart, and elsewhere in the body.

As public servants, we have given our word to do everything we can to protect the public interest. We are sorely lacking in Federal efforts to increase awareness and education about Lyme disease. Every year since 1998, legislation similar to H.R. 741 has been introduced in the House, and we have failed to act.

I urge every member to educate themselves on the Lyme statistics in their home state and take a close look at H.R. 741.

For those Members who sit on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, I urge you to step forward and act to see that this bill is reported out of committee before the House completes its legislative business for the 110th Congress.

For the House leadership, I urge that this bill be placed on the calendar now for action. If we can spend time loading up the suspension calendar and voting on commemorative anniversaries and naming post offices, we surely can find time to address legislation that can make a difference in the lives of Americans.

This is a growing issue. It is becoming a more important issue and a new issue. If you look at the statistics, it is growing around the Nation, it is now becoming an epidemic. And so, when I now see an epidemic taking place in my congressional district, in your congressional district, through New Jersey, through Connecticut--if you talk to Senator Dodd, he will tell you--through Massachusetts, all up and down the east coast, it is time to do something. And so I think it is time to deal with it.

And I see the gentleman from New Jersey here. You have blocked this bill for a long period of time. And I will tell you, I will not permit you to block it. And next year, I will offer amendment after amendment after amendment and do whatever I can to make sure that people who are impacted by this, to make sure that people who do not even know what may very well be threatening them will not be threatened.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to also make some comments about this.

I didn't know I was going to be doing it until I saw the gentleman, Mr. Pallone, standing up and taking this up on suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 906) to prohibit the sale, distribution, transfer, and export of elemental mercury, and for other purposes.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 906, the Senate companion to my legislation, the Mercury Export Ban of 2008.

This bill includes several changes that represent a compromise with the Senate, but at its heart is my legislation that passed with strong bipartisan support in the Energy and Commerce Committee and by voice vote on the floor of the House last November.

I want to thank Chairman Dingell, former Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Barton and Mr. Shimkus for the work they have done on this legislation. I also want to express my gratitude to Senators Obama and Murkowski for introducing this legislation on the Senate side and to Senator Boxer for her efforts. I would also like to thank Jim Bradley of my staff for all his hard work on this bill. Upon its passage today, this bill will be sent to the President to be signed into law.

It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin, harmful at even low levels of exposure. Mercury is harmful whether it is inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Once exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to methylmercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency to bio-accumulate in both fish and humans who eat the fish.

Very young children with developing nervous systems are particularly at risk. In addition, pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children, increasing the chances of miscarriage and birth defects. Mercury can also be found in high concentrations in women's breast milk.

My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution worldwide, namely, the export of elemental mercury from the United States to developing countries. This mercury is used largely for our artisanal mining. Exposure occurs when miners handle the mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for gold and gets into the air through the smelting process which emits mercury vapor.

According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5 million women and 1 million children, engage in artisanal mining with mercury, exposing them to the poisons that mercury produces. Some of this mercury is exported from the United States. That should be unacceptable to us.

The export of mercury for artisanal mining harms Americans who are exposed through the global air transport of mercury pollution or through the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that as of 2004, 44 States, including my State of Maine, have fish advisories that cover 13 million acres of water and over 75,000 miles of rivers and streams.

Scientists have estimated that up to one-third of U.S. mercury air pollution has traveled to the U.S. from Asia where mercury pollution is extensive, including pollution from mercury exported for artisanal mining.

Much of the fish we eat, including tuna, is imported from off the coasts of Asian and South American countries where the use of mercury in artisanal mining is widespread.

The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest holders of mercury in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency has urged DOE and DOD not to sell its mercury stockpiles due to the serious human health and environmental risks associated with mercury. DOD and DOE have agreed. However, that ban is not in law, which is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting mercury. In addition, private companies may still export this poisonous and hazardous material, which is why this legislation is vital.

The Mercury Export Ban Act before us today is the result of a months- long stakeholder process on House side that worked to develop a consensus product. Stakeholders included the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Council of the States, the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine Institute and the National Mining Association. There are not many pieces of legislation that move through this Congress supported by such a diverse group.

The bill prohibits the export of elemental mercury from the United States and requires DOE to designate a long-term storage facility to accept mercury from private sector sources, particularly the chlor- alkali industry and the mining industry, when the export ban in the bill takes effect on January 1, 2013. The bill does not require that all excess mercury be transferred to DOE, rather it gives the private sector the option of placing mercury into storage at DOE. If there is a more practical or more cost-effective private sector solution, the affected industries are more than welcome to pursue that option.

DOE will be allowed to charge a fee to recoup the government's cost of storing this waste. In addition, all applicable and appropriate environmental laws apply with respect to this facility.

The legislation will allow the chlor-alkali industry to place into safe storage the roughly 1,500 tons of mercury stockpiled at aging plants. It will also allow the mining industry to store the approximately 50 to 100 tons of mercury it generates annually as a byproduct of our air filtration systems.

The process used to develop this legislation can be a modeled. On a bipartisan basis, we sat down together. We worked out our differences and brought interested and affected parties to the table to hammer out a compromise.

I also want to thank a number of staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee, including Dick Frandsen, Caroline Ahearn from the majority staff, along with Ann Strickland, who has now left, as well as Dave McCarthy and Jerry Couri from the minority staff and Mo Zilly, formerly of Mr. Shimkus' staff, for their hard work as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

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

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

I rise in strong support of S. 906, the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, again, I didn't get a chance when Mr. Pallone was here to correct the Record. I--we--did contact

Congressman Frank Pallone and Nathan Deal by way of letter on May 18, 2007, and wrote at the time as cochairs of the Congressional Lyme and Disease Caucus, ``we are writing to respectfully request that you mark up and report H.R. 741.

``H.R. 741, the 'Lyme and Tick-borne Disease Prevention, Education and Research Act of 2007' would work toward goals for the prevention, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatment of Lyme disease.''

Then we went on to explain the bill. We pointed out that at the time we had 77 cosponsors. That is now 112 and it is totally bipartisan and includes majority leader Steny Hoyer. We also pointed out that Lyme is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in the United States today. More than 220,000 Americans develop Lyme each year. According to the CDC, only 10 percent of the cases that meet its surveillance criteria are reported. Cases that fall outside of the surveillance criteria are not even considered anywhere statistically.

If not diagnosed and treated early, Lyme disease can lead to chronic illness and can affect every system in the body, including the central nervous system and cardiac system. Later symptoms of Lyme disease include arthritis, neurological problems such as facial paralysis, memory problems, extreme weaknesses of the extremities, seizures, heart block and inflammation and even blindness.

So we sent that back in May 18, 2007. And I say that with respect to my colleague.

Let me also point out, and I just will read a very small portion of the statement of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut. And this is his statement.

``Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced,'' and this is May 1, 2008, ``that his antitrust investigation has uncovered serious flaws in the Infectious Disease Society of America's process for writing its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines and the IDSA has agreed to reassess them with the assistance of an outside arbiter.''

``The IDSA guidelines have sweeping,'' this is Blumenthal speaking, ``have sweeping and significant impacts on Lyme disease medical care. They are commonly applied by insurance companies in restricting coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment or other medical care and also strongly influence treatment decisions by physicians.

``Insurance companies have denied coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment, relying on those guidelines as justification. The guidelines are also widely cited for conclusions that chronic Lyme disease is nonexistent.''

Blumenthal goes on to say: ``This agreement vindicates my investigation finding undisclosed financial interests and forcing a reassessment of IDSA's guidelines.''

Blumenthal said: ``My office uncovered undisclosed financial interests held by several,'' several, ``of the most powerful IDSA panelists. The IDSA's guideline panel improperly ignored or minimized consideration of alternative medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme disease, potentially raising serious questions about whether the recommendations reflected all relevant science. The IDSA's Lyme disease guideline process lacked important procedural safeguards requiring complete reevaluation of its 06 Lyme disease guideline, in effect a comprehensive reassessment through a new panel.''

Blumenthal, and I will put this in the Record, talks about the conflicts of interest with the insurance companies. Again, I would think this Congress would want to get to the science, find out does chronic Lyme exists, and whether or not this is indeed a coverup.