Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2008

I want to thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Arcuri, for the time that he has yielded me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them because I did not write them. I simply just read them. My staff did not write them, nor did any of the Republican staff on the Rules Committee.

In fact, as far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in the House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern.

He spoke these exact same words on the floor 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a martial law rule, which is what we are being asked to consider here today.

Although these are not my words, I associate myself with them fully because they are as true and relevant today as when they were first used. And since I have already borrowed one selection of the gentleman's words, I would like to point out another comment my esteemed Rules Committee colleague made regarding martial law rules. On December 6, 2006, just 1 month before Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives, Democrats made a number of promises on how they would run the House which, unfortunately, have not held up well in the contrast to reality.

Before they had control, Mr. McGovern said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come to this body.''

I would like to ask my friends on the Democrat Rules Committee and this Democratic leadership: What happened? What happened? Where is that openness and the fairness? Where was the openness on the no-energy bill rule where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican substitute?

Where was that openness when we first considered SCHIP reauthorization and we were handed two closed rules by the Democrat leadership? Where has it been over these last 2 years when Democrats have forced a record number of lock-down, closed rules through this House of Representatives with no opportunity for Members, Republicans or Democrats, to improve that legislation? And where is that openness today when we are being asked to consider this tax extenders rule by once again suspending regular order in this House of Representatives?

I know where it is. Our friends, the Democrats, left it out on the campaign trail. And with an upcoming election, I suspect that is where we will be able to find these broken promises once again this next January. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness of this promise was fulfilled on the opening day of the new majority when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for consideration of the first six bills that they were able to take up, in effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first six bills they were going to consider. Ah, yes, 6 in '06.

The remedy for examples of unfairness, they criticized the Rules Committee for the way they did their work, and that trend has started, sadly, and continues today.

As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.''

Mr. Speaker, with these wise words, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have several speakers.

At this time I yield for such time as he may use to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has now for at least the last 2 years made himself available, built bipartisan support, spoken to people in both parties, built a case, invited people to see the circumstance, and talked on behalf of 42 States, people who live in rural areas that have timber.

The gentleman invited me out this last August, notwithstanding that I am a friend of his, but he invited me out. I landed in Portland, drove east on the beautiful highway that goes to Hood, Oregon, and had an opportunity to meet a lot of the people in the area. They are fabulous. They are outstanding people who live in the very midst of Mount Hood.

I had an opportunity to see Mount Hood from a different perspective than the three climbers from Dallas who were trapped and who died earlier last winter. I had a chance to see Mount Hood in the summertime. As I was there with the gentleman, Mr. Walden, he told me the story about the big blowout in the mountain which happened on a separate event, that devastated the area as a result of what Mother Nature had done. He spoke about how the communities got together, how they worked together and solved their problems, just as they did when the three climbers from Dallas perished on the mountain.

But he forthrightly, along with others, reminded me that it is really up to us to get our work done here in Washington. And by no means did the gentleman task me with doing it, but he knew, he knew that I would have the opportunity, along with our colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, who is also greatly affected, that we could come back to a committee that we have served on for 10 and 12 years respectively between the two of us, that we would be able to talk to our colleagues whom we have served with on that committee for the past 10 years, that we would be able to express to them the need and the desire for public policy to be addressed at the appropriate time.

Well, the appropriate time is now. The Senate has spoken. Today the bill came over from the Senate, overwhelming vote, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) rushed to me to find out what the Rules Committee would do, really just to find out what was in the bill. We found out about the bill only minutes before, which once again is against the rules of the House that you don't consider a bill until it is laid out publicly for 24 hours. But that didn't matter again today.

And so we asked on behalf of the gentleman, Mr. Walden, the other members of the Rules Committee what we thought was a bipartisan basis because I believe it is true to say that there are five people on the committee who serve rural areas also or who had heard the compelling story that impacts people all across this country.

So I told Mr. Walden, I think we stand a good chance because we are able to come to our colleagues whom we have spent hundreds of hours with over the last 10 years and to say if it is not in your bill, and we found out it was not, but it is in the package that came from the Senate, will you please just include that?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, you're hearing a story that happened just minutes ago up in the Rules Committee where the members of the committee had within their sole jurisdiction the ability to handle this issue, to take what is referred to as the ping-pong, the bill that moved over, that was completely in the bill that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, and the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, have worked so diligently for the last few years to do.

The Rules Committee chairman, the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, said, well, you know, I had to wait 13 years for one of my bills. That was the response.

The answer was, we came back and reasked the Rules Committee if they would please vote for it. Well, what they did is they turned it down on a voice vote. So we asked for a recorded vote.

On a party-line basis, every single Democratic member of that Rules Committee said no to something that is completely within their jurisdiction, completely within their endeavor. And I fail to know where there's any opposition.

It was obstinate, and it was a slap in the face to the members of the committee who have served with them for making a very simple, honest request.

Open, honest, and ethical. These were the words that we were told and the American people were told. Well, the people in these 41 States are going to have to judge that, but they will know, they will know that it was the Rules Committee and the Speaker of this House, not the United States Senate, who voted 93-2. It's not the President of the United States. He's already said he'd sign the bill. It was the Rules Committee, under the complete jurisdiction of the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, and the Speaker of this House.

So we're on the floor today, a little upset. Being slam dunked I can handle. I think being treated in the way that we were is wrong. I think it's wrong to this committee. I think it's wrong to the members who are on it.

We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, a gentleman who has spoken very eloquently and consistently up in the Rules Committee, and has worked his heart out for the needs of the 41 States that fall within the same position that the gentleman Mr. Walden and the gentleman Mr. Hastings have. He's a strong advocate. I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

I will yield the gentleman 1 additional minute with only 2 minutes remaining.

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

So as I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I don't understand how this process works because these extenders have to pass. We know that. And further, we know that the President will sign this bill with the Secure Rural Schools language in it. We know that. We know that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of frustrated here, and I think this issue should pass. I think the best way to do that, frankly, is to pass the Senate bill and be on with it.

I would like to reserve my time

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I want you to know that, however, despite everything you have heard, I have good news, good news for the American people. Right now with the passage of this continuing resolution yesterday, Republicans have finally removed the main Democrat roadblock to increasing the domestic production of American energy.

This underlying legislation--which I am going to put on the floor right now--which contains tax credits for energy efficiency and conservation will also help this House to implement what Republicans have advocated for months: an all-of-the-above strategy, including nuclear power.

So today I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the courage of these convictions by voting with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure right now right here today that will prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a comprehensive energy bill into law.

It would make it plain and permanent for their support. It would allow States to expand their exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf; it would open the Arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction; it would extend expiring renewable energy initiatives; it would encourage the streamlining approval and refining of capacity for nuclear power facilities; it would encourage research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies and minimizing drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

This requirement would force the Democrat leadership to take positive, comprehensive, permanent, and meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy.

Mr. Speaker, all across this country there are cities without gasoline--there are cities without gasoline--and it stands exactly at the feet of the Democrat leadership, the new majority, who is making sure that the American consumer pays record high prices and yet we've done nothing to make sure that the supply side is taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague and friend from Texas for yielding.

I come to the floor today bitterly disappointed that this majority is one more time denying the opportunity to fund county timber payments to districts like mine.

The Secure Rural Schools Program aids more than 600 rural counties, and 4,400 school districts in 42 States. Let me say that again: 4,400 school districts, 42 States, 600 rural counties are affected by this.

There is broad bipartisan support to reauthorize this legislation and keep a

nearly century-old commitment to the areas like I represent in rural Oregon where the Federal Government owns more than half of the land, much of it timbered. In the old days they would share the receipts from the timber harvest, and then the Federal Government and the courts shut all of that down.

I have three counties that have more than 8 percent unemployment. Virtually all of the mills are gone. I had people coming up to me last weekend in their overalls asking, Is there any hope? Is there any hope for them and their kids to make a decent living taking care of America's forests? Is there any hope to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in this Congress? I gave them a little hope. I said the Senate, the United States Senate, seems to be caring about us. And, indeed, in the tax extenders bill passed by the United States Senate by 93-2, they reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools, phasing it out over 4 years in a formula we all agreed to, but we don't necessarily like.

Time and again, Democrat leadership in this House has said ``no'' to that legislation. That is happening right here, right now. It just happened up in the Rules Committee by denying an amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) on a party-line 8-3 vote. They said, no, we won't even let the House vote to take care of these folks back home and keep this 100-year-old Federal commitment. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

Let me tell you what it means to the people out there. These are real jobs being lost. There are counties in Oregon that may declare bankruptcy. Half the police force in sheriff's offices, the deputies are gone. Road department after road department after road department, cut, slashed, gone. I have counties that have one road maintenance person for every 100 miles of road in their county now. That is the distance from the Nation's capital to Richmond, Virginia, in case you're counting.

You are down to where there won't be any patrols by sheriff's deputies. And yet Americans want to recreate in America's forests. Unfortunately, they go out there and occasionally they get lost. And when they get lost, whom do they call upon to come find them but these same search and rescue teams. Tragically, often they have perished in my State before they get rescued.

It was through funding through this program, or in the old days through the revenue sharing that came to those counties that we were able to have the search and rescue teams and the equipment and everything necessary to go out and try and rescue these families who would get lost or caught in a snowstorm. That is going away.

Schools are deeply affected. In my State, the money, $280 million a year, was funneled throughout all of the school districts. In some States they didn't do it that way. They have already laid off teachers.

Now what is wrong with keeping the word that this Speaker and others said at the beginning of this Congress that there would be an open and fair opportunity for the minority to offer up amendments, have them fully considered, and have them so people can see them.

No, this Rules Committee on an 8-3 basis said we are not going to even allow you to have a vote. And the heck with these county roads and schools where the Federal Government has total control, and the heck with the people who live out there.

County roads and school reauthorization should never have been a partisan issue, and yet it has become that. This House could simply take up the Senate bill under a different rule and allow a vote. And the President of the United States, although he is not the biggest fan of reauthorizing this county payments program, said he would sign that bill that came out of the Senate. So he is not the obstacle. He never said he would veto this. He doesn't like parts of it, but the staff is pretty clear that he would sign it into law and we would reauthorize it.

Republicans would like to see a vote on this. They tried in the Rules Committee, but your Rules Committee said no. So here we are today. This same day rule short-circuits that process with a rule that says this is all you get, and shoves it back to the Senate.

It is time for reform and time for change, and it needs to start right here right now by defeating this same-day rule, by defeating the next rule and giving people in this House the chance to represent their people back home by at least having a vote to reauthorize and fund county roads and schools.

I will tell you, when you let them down, you are hurting literally school kids and putting people's lives in peril because search and rescue will be reduced or eliminated in some areas, and police forces are already being dramatically cut. And that is wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. If we really wanted to solve problems, you wouldn't ram this through the way you are doing it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's kind and generous comments, and also his willingness to come out to my State this summer and see what we are facing in some of these forests.

I talked to a county commissioner from Klamath County yesterday morning. The Winema National Forest now, between the Federal forest land and adjacent private land, there is a half-a-million acres, 500,000 acres, that is now bug infested and nearly dead, if not completely dead. They can go in and treat that area, clean it up, replant it, get the dead trees out for about $250 an acre. If we wait until it catches on fire, taxpayers will spend $1,500 to $2,000 an acre to fight the fire.

Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act makes funds available through different titles in the bill to assist those local governments and the Forest Service to get in and make our forests less susceptible to catastrophic fire, healthier by removing the dead or diseased trees or those that are bug infested and get ahead of this and actually be better stewards of our lands.

This year, the Federal Forest Service budget spent over half, 52 percent so far, to fight fire. In that forest alone, they had to take $1 million away from forest treatment efforts to pay for fighting fires elsewhere. So we fall further and further behind.

This is not the stewardship of our forests that we should be proud of. It is the lack of stewardship that would cause Theodore Roosevelt to roll over in his grave, the great founder of our Nation's forest system. And it doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to happen.

Communities shouldn't be evacuated because of fire threat. Our budgets at the Forest Service shouldn't be exhausted to put out fires. And the biggest economic activity in a rural, forested timbered community around these Federal lands shouldn't be the making of sandwiches for the fire fighters. This has to stop.

The gentleman from New York is a cosponsor of the legislation I'm advocating here. There are other members of the Rules Committee that are cosponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. This is our opportunity. This is our moment. This is our time.

The Senate and the White House support this effort in the legislation sent here by the Senate. If not now, when? Or do you let it all burn? Because that's what's happening out there.

Do you put people out of work?

You claim you're for family wage jobs. You're killing them in my part of the world.

Am I angry about this?

You bet I am. This is real life-and-death stuff. I was at the memorial service for the firefighters who were killed in Northern California, killed fighting fires. And while that, tragically, will happen again, and it is not all the fault that we don't have the Community Self-Determination Act in place, we need to get better policy. We need to get ahead of this problem. We need to be the good stewards we're entrusted to be of these lands. It is not that hard to be fair. It shouldn't be that hard.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1490 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1490 waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The resolution applies to any rule reported on any legislative day through September 27, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure to

provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

I rise today in support of this rule because American families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but also will help to bring this country into a new alternative energy future that will help to create green collar jobs right here in America, jobs that cannot be outsourced to foreign countries or overseas.

Since being elected to Congress, I have voted, along with this body, to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses on at least 14 separate occasions. In doing so, this Congress has upheld its pledge to the American people, and I have kept the promise I made to my constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentives for economic growth.

I know that there are many families and businesses in my district that are struggling in the current economic crisis. With talk of a $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street, we cannot, in good conscience, fail to take action to help so many families facing the ever-escalating costs of gasoline and home heating fuel into this winter.

This legislation we will consider provides tax relief and incentives to those who need them most at a fraction of the cost of bailing out the financial industry.

This Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay-as-you-go rule that we adopted last January. I applaud my Blue Dog Coalition colleagues for their outspoken leadership on the PAYGO consideration and the PAYGO issue. When I explain to folks back home what PAYGO is, I ask them a question: You have to balance your books each month, don't you? The individuals say, of course. They, of course, understand what it means to balance their books. They would not think of spending more than they earn. Businesses would not think of spending more than they earn. You have to ensure that you have enough income coming in to cover your expenses, and, of course, they respond with a nod of the head. They understand it. They get it. And then I say: Shouldn't the Federal Government operate in the same way when it involves spending your tax dollars?

The legislation this rule will allow us to consider today will extend a number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and strengthen our economy. Supporting this rule and the tax legislation we will consider later today is simple common sense.

We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new green collar jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations and reduce greenhouse gases--and we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my colleague, my friend Mr. Sessions, if he has any further speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I am prepared to close, so I would reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the people on the other side of the aisle, you would think that everything that's happened is the fault of the Democratic Party.

They have had the White House for 8 years. We see oil prices as high as they have ever been. Two oilmen in the White House, yet we still see that. We see the economy as bad as the economy has ever been. We're talking about bailing out Wall Street with $700 billion that we're borrowing.

This rule today for this bill is about tax extenders, and that is extenders that would create incentives for alternative energy to help us wean ourselves off of our addiction to foreign oil. And we're doing it in a prudent way, in a way that doesn't borrow and spend, doesn't dump this on the backs of our children and grandchildren, but rather as a paid-for.

The bill that my colleague from Washington spoke about, it's a very good bill, but it hasn't been paid for. These tax extenders today that we're talking about have been paid for. They are extenders that are prudent and responsible.

Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we consider later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, we can spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and reduce greenhouse gasses. And we can do all of it in a fiscally responsible way.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for going on 14 years, and I thought I understood how this system works. We have Republicans and we have Democrats. And always, I think, it's in the best interest of the American people when we can work in a bipartisan way.

The issue I want to address myself to is the Secure Rural Schools Act. It expired. It is very, very important to States, particularly in the western part of the United States where there's a big influence of Federal lands and particularly forest lands.

I just caught the end of what my colleague from Oregon talked about as to

why we are in this situation in the first place. But I can tell you, this is a big economic hit for those rural areas because they don't get the revenue from the Federal lands that they otherwise would have had.

But what I don't understand is that this issue has strong bipartisan support. I serve on the Rules Committee, and there are five of my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee, five out of nine, that are cosponsors of this legislation.

We know that we are nearing the end of this Congress. And we know that there are things that have to pass. The tax extender package is a very important package for other provisions in that bill. For example, the sales tax deductibility for States that don't have a State income tax. Florida is in that situation. There are several members of the Rules Committee that are affected by that. My State is one of those.

But this issue of Secure Rural Schools is very, very important. I have four counties in my district that are impacted, and one that is heavily impacted, impacted in a way that my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden) talked about.

What I find rather confusing about this is that we have now a bill that will be brought before us that we could pass in a nanosecond. It's a tax extender bill that the Senate sent over with a vote of 93-2. It has essentially the same provisions that I think everybody agrees, taxes that need to be extended. But it has the provision and a fix to the Secure Rural Schools for 4 years. For 4 years. It allows those communities now to make some plans as to what the transition may be in the future, since we--of course, I think the best thing we ought to do is utilize our Federal lands. But if that's not going to happen, at least they'll have some time to plan for it.

This morning, and, by the way, we got the text of this bill at 9:52 this morning, which is a little over 3 hours ago, even though we were told that we're going to have 24 hours to look at any bill. But we had it at 9:52 this morning. And we discovered that the Secure Rural Schools Act was out of the House bill. It wasn't in there.

Well, I'm a member of the Rules Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, you can amend the rules by suspending rules to put certain provisions in that you think need to be passed. It happens all the time, especially at the end of the session.

So here we are, this morning, discovered the Secure Rural Schools wasn't in there. I questioned the individual from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon, who came up and testified on the bill, if this was in there. It wasn't in there.

By the way, his State is affected. Even though his district isn't affected, his State is affected.

So I asked him why this was not in the bill. And his response to me was, well, this is a tax bill and really the Secure Rural Schools issue is a spending issue, so we felt it shouldn't be part of the package.

Well, I said, if that's the case, and I accept your argument, then maybe it could go on some appropriation bill.

And then I thought, wait a minute. Yesterday we had a continuing resolution with three appropriation bills that passed this House, and Secure Rural Schools wasn't on it. I don't know why the Democrat leadership didn't put it on that vehicle. That probably would have been the proper one. But we're running out of time. And the House Rules Committee can suspend the rules and attach a provision to anything they want to. We know the Senate bill came over here 93-2.

So, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to take the text of the Senate language, which passed 93-2, and asked that that be debated on the House floor, just asked for it to be debated. If it loses, okay. That's fine. But I think there's broad support. But if it loses, I understand that.

I called for a vote on that. And the vote was on a party-line vote, 8-3 no. In other words, the five Democrats that are cosponsors of this provision, in the waning days of the session, voted ``no'' to consider this on the House floor.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

After too many long years, this is a historic moment. After too many lost opportunities, this is our chance to make a difference and to take an important step toward meeting our commitment to the women of America.

I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Dingell, with whom I introduced the very first version of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act over a decade ago. It is his partnership and that of our colleagues, Chairmen Pallone, Stark, Andrews, Miller, that helped to make this day and this vote possible.

I want to say thank you to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for his support, and for the bipartisan support of this effort.

More than 12 years ago, I first met Dr. Kristen Zarfos. She walked into my office in Connecticut and told me that HMOs were forcing her to discharge her patients before they were ready, sometimes just hours after mastectomy surgery. Dr. Zarfos' experience inspired me to get involved. Her tireless work with patients in my State of Connecticut and with a network of doctors she knew around the country gathered support for this bill from the grass roots all the way to the Congress.

Today, a woman's chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime is one in eight. Almost everyone knows someone who has suffered from this disease. If you have watched a loved one fighting for her life, you understand how important it is to have not only the loving support of family as I did during my fight against ovarian cancer, but also adequate recovery time in the hospital after surgery so you have the professional care to begin healing and to avoid infection.

A mastectomy is not an easy surgery; it is physically and emotionally traumatic. That is what the Breast Cancer Patient Protection bill is all about. It says that when it comes to mastectomies and lumpectomies, adequate recovery time in the hospital should not be negotiable. The last thing any woman should be doing at that time is fighting with her insurance company.

This bill does not mandate a 48-hour hospital stay if a patient chooses to go home sooner, nor does it set 48 hours as a maximum amount of time a woman can stay in the hospital. It simply ensures that any decision in favor of a shorter or longer hospital stay will be made by the patient and her doctor, and not an insurance company. It would also ensure women have access to second opinions and adequate hospital stays after having a lumpectomy.

Some may argue that the time for a bill like this has already passed, that States are beginning to address the issue, but the truth is that drive-through mastectomies continue to today.

At the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing this spring--and I thank, again, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)--breast cancer patient Alva Williams testified that she had a mastectomy on March 6, 2006 and was sent home several hours after surgery. Her insurance company would not cover an overnight stay. Ms. Williams had family to take care of her at home, but they had no medical training. She developed an infection in her incisions. Recovering from the infection caused Ms. Williams' chemotherapy treatments to be delayed by 6 weeks.

All across the Nation women continue to suffer the same way that Alva Williams suffered, physically and emotionally, and yet without the care they should rightfully be getting for the insurance premiums that they have paid. And all across this Nation people everywhere are saying, ``No more.''

Twenty-three million Americans have signed Lifetime Television's petition calling for the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act's passage. Now with 222 cosponsors in the House and Senators Snowe and Landrieu leading 19 cosponsors in the Senate, strong bipartisan support exists for these most basic patient protections.

I urge my colleagues to support the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. Make this day a powerful turning point. We have a tremendous opportunity today to make it clear to women, to cancer patients, and to their families that we value your health.

I again thank my colleagues, and urge the support of this bill.