Supporting the goals and ideals of Tay-Sachs Awareness Month.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1333, which recognizes this September 2008 as Tay-Sachs Disease Awareness Month. I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, and I commend my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown, for spearheading a companion resolution in the Senate.

Tay-Sachs Disease is a progressive neurological disorder for which there is no treatment or cure. The most common form of it affects infants who appear healthy at birth and seem to develop normally at first; but at around 6 months, symptoms of the disease begin to appear. The baby gradually begins to regress, losing the ability to crawl, turn over, sit or reach out. Eventually, as paralysis sets in, the child becomes blind, deaf and unable to swallow. Tragically, few infants born with Tay-Sachs live past the age of 5.

This terrible disease appears most often in families with no prior history because the Tay-Sachs gene can be carried through many generations without being expressed. However, when two carriers of the gene become parents, there is a 1-in-4 chance that any child they have may be born with the disease.

While about 1.2 million Americans are carriers of the Tay-Sachs gene, certain populations are at much higher risk. About 1 in 30 American Jews, 1 in 50 Irish Americans is a carrier. French Canadians, Louisiana Cajuns, Pennsylvania Dutch are high risk populations, but all populations are at risk.

It's easy to reduce this terrible disease like Tay-Sachs to statistics, but there are real human stories behind these statistics that must not be overlooked. My wife's son, Joey Deon, was born a happy, healthy and all around pleasant baby. There was no warning he would be afflicted by this terrible disease. But at the age of 1 he began to show symptoms. His mother, like many other parents of children with Tay-Sachs, was forced to watch a once active, healthy baby slowly lose his bodily functions.

God came to claim his angel in his sleep one day before his 5th birthday. Thankfully, he did not suffer as many with this disease do suffer.

He did not suffer, but very often children afflicted with this disease suffer badly before death.

Madam Speaker, a simple blood test can identify carriers of the Tay- Sachs gene before they have children. But very few people, including those in high-risk populations, are aware of its

availability. This critical test can identify carrier couples before a tragedy occurs. Raising awareness of this terrible disease is important, but it is critical that we also put the words into actions.

Millions of Americans who suffer from rare diseases like Tay-Sachs and more common diseases like cancer stand to benefit from an expanded Federal commitment to stem cell research. We must also continue to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. Federal support for cutting-edge biomedical research will make treatments and cures for diseases like Tay-Sachs a reality.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1333 and Tay-Sachs Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1333) supporting the goals and ideals of Tay- Sachs Awareness Month, 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 resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1333, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Tay-Sachs Awareness Month.

Tay-Sachs is a rare genetic disorder that causes destruction of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. It usually develops in infants and leads to blindness and paralysis before ultimately giving way to death. Unfortunately, there is presently no treatment or cure for this disease.

The resolution before us today supports education and continued research efforts to combat Tay-Sachs disease so that one day we may find a cure.

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Arcuri from New York, for his work in raising this important issue. I know this issue is close to his heart and I want to express my gratitude to him.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would urge support of the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation. Presently, there is no treatment for Tay-Sachs disease. But I would like to thank the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for their efforts to reduce the burden of neurological disease. They are part of the National Institutes of Health, and they conduct research on this particular disease in laboratories at NIH, and also support additional research through grants to major medical institutions across the country.

It is important for us to understand and to become more aware of this particular problem, and that's what this legislation seeks to do. I would urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.