Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rochester Drug Court for 14 years of service to the community and to drug courts around the country during National Drug Court Month. Over 2,100 drug courts in the United States provide an alternative to incarceration for non-violent, drug-addicted offenders by combining intense judicial supervision, comprehensive substance abuse and mental health treatment, random and frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and ancillary life skills services. The tireless efforts of the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, rehabilitation experts, child advocates, researchers, educators, law enforcement representatives, correctional representatives, pre-trial officers and probation officers that are involved in drug courts provide substance abuse offenders with the much-needed chance at long-term recovery and productive lifestyles.

I have seen firsthand the impact of drug courts in my state, where drug court programs have enhanced public safety, saved taxpayer dollars and, most importantly, saved lives.

The first drug court in New York State was founded in my congressional district in Rochester, New York in 1995 and I have been a supporter ever since. In 1997, I was honored to be one of the drug court's first graduation speakers.

To date, New York State has opened an additional 200 drug courts. Rochester alone has had over 1500 graduates from its court and over 100 babies have been born drug free.

As we face a growing population of drug-addicted offenders in the American justice system, we must expand our efforts to bring treatment to a larger number of those in need. According to a recent study by the Urban Research Institute's Justice Policy Center, approximately 1.5 million drug-involved offenders should be diverted to drug court, which would generate $46 billion in savings to American taxpayers. Armed with this study as well as our existing research that drug courts work, reduce recidivism, and save lives, we must work on taking drug courts to scale.

If society is truly going to save the lives of the addicted, break the familial cycle of addiction for future generations, have a substantial impact on associated crime, child abuse and neglect, reduce poverty, alleviate the over-reliance on incarceration for the addicted, and reduce many of the public health consequences in the United States, drug courts must be taken to scale. There is no greater opportunity for systemic social change in the American justice system. There is no greater opportunity to heal families and communities.

Again, congratulations to the dedicated drug court professionals and graduates in Rochester and across the country on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 338, 339, 340, 341, and 342, I was at a bill signing at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1197 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1197.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1197 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008.

The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment with three House amendments. The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. The rule also provides that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the Congressional Record dated May 15, 2008, such material as he may deem explanatory of the motion.

Madam Speaker, with a deep appreciation for the importance of the legislation before us today, the Rules Committee has reported out a rule that allows for a full, thorough debate on three amendments critical to the future of our Nation. This process will give each Member ample opportunity to vote their conscience on whether to fund the war or not, place conditions on our Iraq policy or not, or choose to support veterans over millionaires.

The legislation we are about to take up was forged with the idea of consensus. It meets the spending requirements made by President Bush, including the $5.8 billion that he asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans. In addition, it does not include a single earmark, except those explicitly requested by Mr. Bush's administration.

On the other hand, the legislation is not a blank check because it is important to remember why we are really here today. This is the sixth year of the war in Iraq. More than 4,000 United States service men and women, 28 from my district alone, are dead. Tens of thousands have been wounded and physically disabled, and far too many suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues. What's more, the civilian death total is devastating. Millions, not thousands, of Iraqi men, women and children are dead. Millions more have been forced into camps or other countries that will accept them.

At a time of economic emergency, when the American family is under siege, the war continues to be waged at

a staggering cost to the American taxpayer and at the expense of our economic security.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the Bush administration's practice of paying off supposedly independent military analysts to shade the truth about what was really happening in Iraq. This administration was so concerned that Americans would find out the truth that they paid former U.S. military personnel to read from prescreened, whitewashed Pentagon talking points to hide from the American people what was happening in their name.

This may be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history, and the American people overwhelmingly are calling for it to end. They have seen that this insurgency is far from nearing the end. They were told, ``Trust us. The Iraqi war revenues will pay for reconstruction.'' Yet the American people are feeling the pinch as their hard-earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign nation while their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart. They were told, ``Trust us. We will make sure your sons and daughters have the equipment they need.'' Yet we have all seen the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill-equipped armored vehicles. And we have all heard the tales of worried mothers scraping together the family savings to purchase adequate body armor for their children.

They were told, ``Trust us. We will ensure that our fighting men and women will be taken care of when they return home.'' Yet we all remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, the recent reports of appalling living conditions for troops stationed in the barracks at Fort Worth, Texas.

Under such circumstances, it would be an abdication of our duty to perpetuate a clearly unacceptable status quo. For that reason, the legislation we take up today represents a break from the past and a renewed chance of changing a stale, stagnant situation.

It does, indeed, provide immediate funding for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are currently in the field. However, while the needs of our troops will always be at the forefront of our national priorities, funding for this war must not come in the form of a blank check. This funding only comes with conditions that will begin the process for ending this war.

The supplemental requires that troops begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing a full withdrawal in 18 months. We do this not because we concede 1 inch to those who would do our Nation harm or because we lack the will to fight for our national security, we do this because basic respect for our military demands it. No longer will they be asked to fight an open-ended conflict whose finish line keeps moving.

And in keeping with this respect for our troops, the legislation mandates that soldiers must be properly rested and equipped to meet the administration's own standards for combat readiness before redeployment.

Furthermore, we will honor the parents who continue to serve our Nation by finally providing full funding for the military day care centers.

This legislation also keeps our promises to our veterans. Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need to resume their lives upon their return home. The bill before us dramatically expands the education benefits that veterans of the United States military will receive under the new GI Bill. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit and much more, but every dollar we spend on education today will come back to bolster our economy tomorrow. It is also an investment.

And I would add that this provision is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest, who saw their tax rates drop 19.6 percent in 2004, they have saved around $126,000 since that time, we are asking them please to give us $500 to help fund the GI Bill of Rights.

At no time ever before in the history of this country have we been burdened with massive tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war. Obviously this has been a new idea of this administration. These actions of fiscal incompetence by the Bush administration left this country's economy struggling, and American families are paying the price. And no families are paying it more than the families of the men and women who are fighting this war. No sacrifice has been asked from any of the rest of us.

Rising levels of sustained joblessness require us to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who understandably cannot find a job. This bill does just that.

Additionally, up until this point, the American people have been unfairly asked to shoulder the full weight of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. The underlying legislation requires that U.S. reconstruction aid be matched dollar for dollar by the Iraqi Government, removing some of the pressure from families already struggling to make ends meet.

Furthermore, it prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people with a costly occupation long after the Army is gone.

Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight a conflict and a war far away from home, and we owe them not only our support and our deep thanks, and not only with words, but with the deeds that we commit to in this Congress. This bill is about who we are as a society and the values that we hold.

I am proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin 2 additional minutes.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, let me say to my colleagues, voting for this rule gives the President not only what he has asked for the funding of the troops, but allows the people in the House who oppose that to have an opportunity to vote ``no.''

We also note, in response to Mr. Reichert, that it does have an orderly withdrawal of troops beginning in December 2009, ending in 18 months.

This is a well-crafted piece of legislation of which I am extremely proud. I urge everyone to vote for the bill and rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1167.

Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res. 1167 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, on legislation relating to the following three measures:

(1) H.R. 5715, to protect the Federal student loan program.

(2) H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

(3) a bill to provide for a temporary extension of the farm bill.

The 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 an unusual procedure. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported

a number of rules that provided for additional suspension days.

This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these three time- sensitive measures. This will help us move these noncontroversial, yet important, legislative initiatives that have widespread bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, since I will be the last speaker on this side, I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.

Madam Speaker, while I had not planned to be here at this point to debate gas prices, I feel compelled to put a few things on the record.

Everybody knows that ExxonMobil announced first quarter profits totaling $11 billion, up 17 percent from last year and just shy of record profits last quarter. BP announced profits increased 63 percent; Royal Dutch-Shell 25 percent, and this increases the 5-year trend of record oil profits.

While my colleagues say we have done nothing, the fact is that we've done a great deal and they've almost consistently voted against it. For example, we have tried more than once to take away the Federal subsidies to these oil companies, to the big five, because they are awash in money, and we see no reason for them to get more from the taxpayers than they're already getting at the pump. That has been consistently fought by both the Republican Party and the President. The President calls for the same policies that he has done all along and sort of hopes for the best. For the last 7 years, congressional Republicans and President Bush doled out billions of dollars in subsidies to the big oil companies, instead of working for an energy independence plan for America which was rarely discussed even during their tenure.

We're committed to a new direction. Speaker Pelosi has called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. That would go a long way toward helping us with this. We have done this before, but President Bush says he doesn't think it would affect the price.

On Friday, the New Direction Congress called on the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law and to investigate record gas prices and possible market manipulation. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the FTC has the authority, but will not take it, to exercise the power to protect the consumer from skyrocketing energy costs. That is the Republican administration.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also included landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more efficient and to promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day by 2020, and it will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump. That is under the Democrats in Congress.

We've also passed legislation in this House to crack down on oil price gouging, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and then, as I said, to repeal the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in a renewable energy future. However, President Bush and the Republicans block these efforts every step of the way.

Cracking down on oil price gouging was opposed by 140 Republicans in the House, including all of the Republican leadership except Mr. McCotter. Holding OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans, including most of the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cole, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Granger. Repealing subsidies to the profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, almost unanimously, including all of the Republican leadership. And in every case, the Bush administration threatened to veto the bills. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate refused to even let them become bills to go to the President.

We have a good and sufficient record here. We have planned to do more. We have done more than was done in the last 7 years to try to do that.

With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1167 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

paragraph:

(4) Any bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would

have the effect of lowering the national average price per

gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1156 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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 the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1156.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1156 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate on the motion with 20 minutes each controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, the story of humanity is defined by extraordinary achievements that centuries later are looked upon as having impacted the course of human history. Five years ago, we saw one of these distinguishing achievements: the mapping out of the human genome, a discovery that pries open the door of possibility and presents an opportunity to advance the human race.

This breakthrough in the field of genetics joins the ranks of momentous discoveries that have changed the face of medicine and science for centuries to come, like the discovery of the polio vaccine so many years ago.

Last week, Senator Kennedy on the Senate floor noted that the mapping of the human genome ``may well affect the 21st century as profoundly as how the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century.''

However, Madam Speaker, such discoveries and achievements do not automatically lead to these extraordinary breakthroughs. In order for us to fully reap the benefits, we must ensure that our social policy keeps pace with the advancement of our science.

That is precisely why I rise today in support of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. It has been 13 years in the making, and I'm pleased that the House of Representatives is once again considering the bill today, hopefully for the last time, so we may send it to the President to sign into law.

While I'm pleased we're taking it up, I'm saddened that so much time has been lost and that the march toward progress and discovery has been slowed.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is the culmination of a broad and bipartisan effort to prohibit the improper use of genetic information in workforce and health insurance decisions.

It prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to healthy individuals or charging higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to maybe develop a disease in the future.

Furthermore, it bars employers from using one's genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or job promotion decisions.

Madam Speaker, the bill has been described as the first civil rights legislation of the 21st century. I think that assessment is correct because, with the exception of trauma, everything that happens to a person's body has a genetic component. From the color of our eyes to our height, to the illnesses and disorders we are susceptible to, everything happens because of our genes.

No one, not a single living human being, has perfect genes. In fact, each one of us is estimated to be genetically predisposed to between 5 and 50 serious disorders.

The good news is that since the sequencing of the human genome was completed in April, 2003, thanks to Dr. Francis Collins, who I am happy to say is in the gallery today, researchers have identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions and increased the potential for early treatment and the prevention of numerous genetic- based diseases. There are already genetic tests for over 1,000 diseases, and hundreds more are under development.

Let me mention just two of them. Just this week we heard from newspapers that in London and work being done in Pittsburgh, and I believe it's the University of Pennsylvania, has restored some eyesight to people who were disposed to a genetic disease that harmed their vision as children. To be able to restore eyesight is something none of us had ever dreamed of being able to do. But by injecting genetic material into the back of the eye behind the retina, they have received some sight. They believe that once they are able to do this in younger children and be able to increase the dose that the success rate will be extremely high, and that, in itself, is such good news.

Also yesterday the New York Times reported that the gene has been isolated for osteoporosis and for fragile bones. I remember when we were fighting for the Office of Women's Health, the statistic we used for osteoporosis was that we spent between $20 and $30 billion a year, and this was years ago, 10 or 15, all that much money to treat osteoporosis. At that point we had no treatment for it. We just tried to do the best we could. We have over time achieved some treatments for osteoporosis, but think what would happen if once we find that gene, we are able to manipulate that gene or change it and prevent osteoporosis altogether?

The great thing about this science is the limitless possibility to cure human conditions without long hospital stays, without invasive surgeries, and there are possibilities there for an entirely new way for us to provide health care.

Now, consider if these tests we know that can tell a woman if she has a family history of breast cancer, if she has a genetic predisposition. For at least the 10 years, I have been told by women

who are in that condition and also by their physicians that they have recommended to them that until a bill such as the one we are passing today becomes law in this country, they should not put at risk their health insurance, many of them who are the sole provider for health insurance for their families, or their jobs. We believe, the estimates are, that about 22 percent of Americans have already been discriminated against. We have numerous cases of people who have lost their jobs. So the most important thing to show what rank discrimination that has been is that having the gene is only predictive. It does not say that you are doomed to have it. Indeed, it could be 20 or 30 years away, if at all. To deny a person health insurance and employment on that kind of proposition is nothing but discrimination.

We know now that numbers of people are going to go out to get the tests that they need to be able to plan for the rest of their lives, constituents that we have all had with Alzheimer's who want to plan for their future. So in addition to improving health care for millions, it's going to give the scientists and our medical researchers invaluable insight on how to combat and even cure diseases in the future.

I don't think we're going to realize what a wonderful day this is for us until someone in your family is faced with this and that you can have a cure for them. It is totally remarkable. I honestly believe that, being here in Congress for 22 years, which has meant so much to me and for which I am so grateful to my constituents, that this piece of legislation and what we have done here is the most important thing that I shall ever do in my life and certainly in my time as a legislator.

I'm enormously grateful to everybody who has supported this and all the people who have worked on it all these many years, never getting discouraged, always working every 2 years, refiling the bill, getting all the cosponsors, and fighting for passage. That wonderful day now has come. I especially want to give my thanks to my colleague Judy Biggert for all the wonderful work that she has done.

Madam Speaker, to give you an idea of the potential that exists, consider that genetic tests can tell a woman with a family history of breast cancer if she has the genetic mutation that causes it long before the cancer develops.

Armed with this information, this woman can make important health decisions on when to engage in preventative care and when to seek early treatment.

And in doing so, we can cut down on hospital stays and invasive surgeries while allowing medical treatments to be more personalized.

Madam Speaker, in addition to improving health care for millions of individuals, genetic testing gives our scientists and medical researchers invaluable insight into how to combat and, perhaps, even cure these diseases in the future.

However, for the potential of genetic research to be realized, we need to make genetic testing something that is commonplace, rather than something that is feared.

Unfortunately, because no one has perfect genes, no one is immune to genetic discrimination. And the threat of discrimination is holding men and women back from participating in clinical trials that will lead to the medical breakthroughs of the 21st Century.

Madam Speaker, their fears are not unfounded. Genetic discrimination is real and is happening today.

A 2001 survey of employer medical testing practices found that 1.3 percent of companies test employees for sickle cell anemia, 0.4 percent test for Huntington's Disease, and 20.1 percent ask about family medical history.

During the 1970s, many African Americans were denied jobs and health insurance based on their carrier status for sickle cell anemia.

More recently, many have heard about the 2002 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation case where the company paid a $2.2 million settlement after it tested its employees for a genetic marker dubiously associated with carpel tunnel syndrome.

In North Carolina, a woman was fired after a genetic test revealed her risk for a lung disorder even though she had already begun the treatments that would keep her healthy.

There was even an instance of an adoption agency refusing to allow a woman at risk for Huntington's disease to adopt a child.

These abuses have only fed the public fear of genetic discrimination, leading many Americans to forgo genetic testing even if it may help avert premature death.

Sixty-six percent of Americans are concerned about how their genetic information would be stored and who would have access to it.

Seventy-two percent of the American public believes that the government should establish laws and regulations to protect the privacy of one's genetic information.

Madam Speaker, genetic discrimination is wrong on two fronts.

First, it is critical to remember that simply carrying a given genetic mutation does not guarantee that one will develop the disorder. It merely confers a level of risk upon the carrier.

Given that scientists cannot accurately predict when or whether a carrier will develop a genetic disorder, it is illogical to allow this information to be used by health insurers and employers for discriminatory purposes.

Secondly, and very importantly, if individuals do not participate in clinical trials, we will never be able to reap the real benefits of genetic science.

In a 2003 editorial, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and James Watson made a persuasive argument in favor of non-discrimination legislation like GINA.

They wrote, and I quote: ``Genetic discrimination has the potential to affect people's lives in terms of jobs and insurance, but there is another dimension as well: It can slow the pace of the scientific discovery that will yield crucial medical advances.'' End quote.

Madam Speaker, as I have mentioned, this legislation began 13 years ago and has had quite a ride going back and forth between the House and the Senate.

I would like to take a moment to speak briefly about the evolution of this bill and the agreements that we have made so that it could end up here today.

In order for us to move forward, we addressed some of the concerns about the legislation, specifically about the threat of frivolous lawsuits.

Several years back, we made sure that if an employer inadvertently receives a person's genetic information, they could not be sued unless they used that information to discriminate against the employee.

Within the past few weeks, we were able to work out a clarification regarding the so-called ``firewall'' issue.

This agreement makes both sides happy and still preserves 40 years of civil rights law by ensuring that employers are held accountable under civil rights remedies.

In addition, this bill requires that before an individual can go to court, the EEOC has to review their claim and determine if it has merit.

I am very pleased that we were able to work together to ensure the success of this critical legislation.

And, Madam Speaker, while there have been some opponents to this bill over the years, there have mostly been allies.

I hold here in my hand 514 letters of support from a wide spectrum of health, scientific, and medical-related organizations.

Here in Congress, we have over 220 cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans.

Just over a year ago, this body passed GINA 420-3, and last week, the Senate once again passed this bill unanimously by a vote of 95-0.

Even the White House has come out in support of genetic nondiscrimination legislation.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to thank the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill, Congresswoman Judy Biggert. Without her and her staffs hard work, today would simply not have been possible.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for her strong advocacy on behalf of this bill over the years.

I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Snowe and Enzi for championing this bill through the Senate.

And I especially want to thank Dr. Francis Collins for his support. His testimony last year before three House Committees should have swayed even the firmest nonbelievers that genetics has the potential to change our health care system as we know it.

I am so proud to have played a role in making this legislation possible--legislation that not only will stamp out a form of discrimination, but will allow us to realize the tremendous potential of genetic research.

By passing this legislation today, we open the door to usher in a whole new era of health care and change the course of human history.

Millions of Americans have waited far too long for these protections, but I'm so pleased the wait is almost over.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill once again.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and thank him for his help.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as Mr. Andrews is, Ms. Eshoo, who saw me through many a bad moment on this bill, and to whom I am extremely grateful.

I have no further requests for time. Let me ask my colleague if he is prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I really don't want to do this, because I don't understand this previous question on a bill of this importance, but I do need to say, just for the record, that Speaker Pelosi has brought to the floor three times bills to lower gas prices; to crack down on price gouging, on holding OPEC accountable, and repealing the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil. Every time, almost unanimously, the Republicans in this House voted against it. She has called to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and she has asked for a study on price gouging.

Give us some help, for heaven's sake, so we can get this done. In the previous 7 years there was nothing here at all, except more and more subsidies to Big Oil.

I urge a ``yes'' vote 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.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 239, I was detained in Senate on district business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall votes 192, 199, 200, and 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 192, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 199, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 200, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 201.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 192, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, today I'm proud to introduce the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act.

Consider for a moment that a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer is 1 in 7 today, compared to 1 in 22 in the 1940s--over half of the cases are unexplained. And, over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer, juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders. Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998.

About 100,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States. However, 90 percent of these have never been fully tested for their impact on human health. Scientists have found that exposure to these synthetic chemicals disrupts hormone function and contributes to increased incidences of diseases. We already know the tragic impact that diethylstilbestrol, or DES, has had on the daughters of women who took this anti-miscarriage drug prescribed until 1971.

Furthermore, a recent article in the Boston Globe highlighted the possible link between obesity and exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogen-like compound found in many common plastic objects.

While the evidence is mounting that there is an association between these chemicals and hormone disruption, research remains limited, particularly on the impact on women and on how long-term, low-dose exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical stages of development.

A couple years ago, I participated in a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group to find out what toxic substances I, in particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout our lives. My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of chemicals pumping through my vital organs every day. These chemicals include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under Federal investigation.

The study also tested 10 newborn babies and found that on average, each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood at the time of birth. The fact that we have children coming into this world already polluted and at the same time, do not know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immoral. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not after they get into our bloodstreams.

For several years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation that would allow NIH to expand its research on the impact of these chemical pollutants on the health of women and children.

Once again, I am introducing two important bills that I hope will advance this research--the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act. The Environmental Hormone Disruption Act authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a comprehensive program to research and educate the public on the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. The Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act authorizes the NIEHS to establish multidisciplinary research centers to investigate how environmental factors may be related to women's health and disease prevention.

Increased investments in research now could prevent and treat a broad range of diseases and disorders in future generations. I urge my colleagues to support these bills today.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1092 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1092 relates to the consideration of H.R. 5724, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The rule suspends the timelines for House consideration that are in the fast track law with respect to consideration of this specific trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the legislation passed through this Chamber represents the best interests of those that sent us here, the American people. To outsource that very basic legislative responsibility is to advocate the duties constitutionally prescribed to our branch and raises questions as to why we are here in the first place. The situation we find ourselves in today deals directly with that issue.

The President has attempted to dictate the legislative schedule of the Congress according to his political calendar. Over the objections of congressional leadership, he sent Congress the Colombia Free Trade Agreement in an attempt to force consideration of the measure within 60 days by using a provision known as Trade Promotion Authority, or fast track.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to dispel a few myths about the action that we take today. The rule we are taking up today does not in any way affect the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It simply removes the timeline for considering it. It gives the House of Representatives the right to schedule when the agreement is undertaken.

There are some who have called into question whether Congress has the right to suspend fast track procedures for trade agreements. One need look no further than the Trade Act of 1974, the legislation that establishes fast track, to see that the very statute itself allows that, like any rule of the House, fast track procedures can be suspended.

We have also heard some raise questions about what consequences our action here today will have on the Senate's consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The answer is, it will have no effect.

The rule today was necessitated by the partisan and irresponsible actions of the President. Instead of working with Congress to reach agreements on this accord, he instead took the unprecedented step of sending the Colombia trade deal to Congress over the objection of congressional leaders.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been promised a lot when it comes to trade. However, in a country whose economy has been devastated by ill-conceived trade deals, it can only be expected that the American people will remain wary. The promise of good-paying work on the horizon has consistently been dashed by the reality of job loss.

Last Friday's unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, and more jobs, over 80,000, were lost last month alone. It is yet another indicator of the worsening economic situation facing millions of America's families. Each day it becomes clearer that our country is teetering on the edge of economic disaster, and, for millions, financial ruin is just around the corner. It is simply not the right time to move forward with this trade agreement.

The American people deserve an agreement that actually responds to the needs of the American worker, not makes promises that will not be met. By passing the rule today, we will no longer be bound by arbitrary deadlines and the House can bring up the agreement at the appropriate time and under the appropriate conditions.

Mr. Speaker, there is yet another reason why this free trade agreement is untimely and requires additional consideration moving toward passage. We have been promised time after time in trade legislation that there would be side agreements protecting the life and work of labor, that there would be environmental safeguards, that there would no longer be child labor. None of that has come true.

And it certainly makes one suspicious on this trade bill also because of the number of trade unionists who have been murdered. This makes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement hard to justify, given the continued violence against the union leaders, subsistence farmers, indigenous people and Afro-Colombians.

While President Uribe has made some progress, systematic killings are still far too prevalent to warrant the passage of this bill. Persecution of trade unionists is well-known because since the beginning of this year, 12 have already been murdered. Rewarding the Colombia Government with this bill under those conditions eliminates any leverage the U.S. Government has to improve the respect for human rights and the rule of law in the future.

To push forward at a time of economic insecurity is simply irresponsible for working families at home. To push forward in the midst of gross violations of human rights in Colombia is simply wrong.

It is the prerogative of Congress to suspend fast track if the timing necessitates it and only when it is in the best interests of the American people. By passing the rule today, we are reestablishing the House of Representatives as coequal to the President, and, in do doing so, we are standing up for America's working families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York 1 more minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, an expert in this issue, and a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many requests for time he has remaining.

I have one more, who is not presently on the floor. So I will reserve my time.

I think I'll reserve it. Thank you very much for the offer.

I continue to reserve.

I will continue to reserve.

My last speaker has not yet shown up.

I think that's accurate.

There are none.

Mr. Speaker, I need to put on the record the fact that America is not the manufacturing giant. China is the manufacturing giant, followed by India.

No. I would like to have my time to close.

The people who talk today about free trade never mention fair trade. That's been a problem for me for a long time. If it has not affected their economy, they're very lucky.

I happen to represent an economy that has been greatly affected by trade policies that did nothing for the American workers, that did nothing to produce more jobs. The idea that we would again continue to follow that failed policy surprised me.

But the most important thing today, we are not debating the Colombia- U.S. Free Trade Compact. What we are debating today is whether or not the House of Representatives is going to take back what it is entitled to take back, and that is, responsibility for scheduling matters that come to the floor for consideration. It is a very important point. We are perfectly entitled to do it under the law. It affects the Senate not a whit.

And I am proud, frankly, to say again that our prerogatives, which have been slipping away from us for the past 12 years, all the Congress' prerogatives going to the executive department, that has to stop. And I not only want to stop this one, I would like to regain some of the abilities that we have lost already to represent the people who send us here.

I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this rules change today.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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