Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is critically important in preventing our current stock of antibiotics from becoming obsolete. As a mother, grandmother, and microbiologist, I cannot stress the urgency of this problem enough.

Seven classes of antibiotics that are considered medically important for humans are currently approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture. Among them are penicillin, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins, aminoglycosides, and sulfonamides. These classes of antibiotics are among the most critically important in our arsenal of defense against potentially fatal diseases.

Penincillins, for example, are used to treat infections ranging from strep throat to meningitis. Macrolides and Sulfonamides are used to prevent secondary infections in patients with AIDS and to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. Tetracyclines are used to treat people potentially exposed to anthrax.

Despite their importance in human medicine, these drugs are added to animal feed as growth promotants and for routine disease prevention. This kind of habitual, nontherapuetic use of antibiotics has been conclusively linked to a growing number of incidents of antimicrobial- resistant infections in humans, and may be contaminating ground water with resistant bacteria in rural areas.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, would phase out the use of the seven classes of medically significant antibiotics that are currently approved for nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture. Make no mistake, this bill would in no way infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal. It simply proscribes their nontherapuetic use.

Although the FDA could withdraw its approval for these antibiotics, its record of reviewing currently approved drugs under existing procedures indicate that it would take nearly a century to get these medically important antibiotics out of the feed given to food producing animals. In October 2000, for example, the FDA began consideration of a proposal to withdraw its approval for the therapeutic use of fluoroquinolones in poultry. The review is still ongoing, and under its regulations, the FDA must review each class of antibiotics separately.

Unfortunately, upcoming actions by the FDA could make us less, not more safe. As antimicrobial resistance is on the rise, the FDA is considering an application to permit the use of a fourth-generation cephalosporin, cefquinome, in animal agriculture. Fourth-generation cephalosporins are used to treat food borne illnesses, including E. Coli and Salmonella. In Europe, where cefquinome has been approved for use in animal agriculture, scientists have noticed an increase in resistant bacteria. Already, the emerging strains of resistant bacteria are reaching a crisis level here in the United States. That the FDA is currently considering approval of a drug that will only make humans more vulnerable to resistant bacteria underscores the need for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, when we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without worrying that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medial treatments. Unless we act now, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria.

It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and do something to address the spread of resistant bacteria. We cannot afford for our medicines to become obsolete.

I urge my colleagues to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act to protect the integrity of our antibiotics and the health of American families.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Athletics Accountability Act. As opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and athletics have been made increasingly available, women's participation has grown exponentially. Nearly 2.6 million high school girls now participate in organized sports, as opposed to 294,015 in 1971 before Title IX was enacted. Athletic participation has brought with it confidence and camaraderie among young women, giving them memories and friends that will last a lifetime.

Despite our progress, persistent attacks against equality for women's sports require that we continue to protect the rights our nation's young women deserve. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for high schools and parents to ensure fairness in their athletics programs. The High School Athletics Accountability Act requires that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. The data will help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Ultimately better information will encourage greater participation of all students in athletics.

Without information about how athletic opportunities and benefits are being allocated at the high school level, female students may be

deprived of their chance to play sports. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education. A survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Associations indicates that female students receive 1.25 million fewer opportunities to play high school sports than do male students, which translate into many lost opportunities for athletic scholarships. Other studies show that student athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. Women athletes also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self- esteem than female non-athletes--critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives. We must give our schools the tools they need to identify inequities in their programs so that current and future generations of women can enjoy the benefits of sports.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help girls move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the nation.

Madam Speaker, today, I am again proud to introduce the Prevention First Act. By emphasizing prevention first, my bill will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the spread of STDs, and give women the tools they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves. The Prevention First Act will help to achieve these goals by providing comprehensive access to all forms of contraception and sex education.

Throughout the years, conservative leaders have sought to limit women's rights and freedoms by imposing stricter penalties on doctors who help women faced with an unintended pregnancy. At the same time, these leaders have done very little to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are prevented in the first place. If they are opposed to abortion, if they support women's health, and if they believe that the right to choose when to start a family should apply to all women, no matter their economic or social situation, then they should be in favor of this bill.

It has been more than 40 years since the Supreme Court said women had the right to access contraception. This decision was revolutionary, for the first time allowing women to choose when to become pregnant and how many children to have. Access to contraception greatly enhanced women's equality in American Society.

It also helps to ameliorate economic disparities among women. The social and economic realities surrounding contraception could not be starker. Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. About 1 in 5 women of reproductive age were uninsured in 2003, and that proportion has increased by 10% since 2001. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X, the national family planning program. These programs provide high-quality family planning services and other preventive health care, such as pap smears, to underinsured or uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health care and alternative options for birth control. What's more, each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated one million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Despite the obvious benefits they bring, these programs are currently struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services without corresponding increases in funding. The Prevention First Act authorizes funding for Title X clinics and strengthens states' coverage of Medicaid family planning services.

Contraception is, of course, more than a means of fighting economic inequalities. It also provides a way to save scarce public health dollars. For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3.80 is saved in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care.

And what's more, improved access to emergency contraception (EC) has been proven to significantly reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancy and, as a result, abortion. EC prevents pregnancy after unprotected sex or a contraceptive failure. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, EC is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are reported to be raped each year. Unfortunately, even with the recent FDA decision to allow EC to be sold over-the-counter to women 18 years of age and over, many women do not know about EC and many still face insurmountable barriers in accessing this important product. The Prevention First Act mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services implement an education campaign about EC and requires that hospitals receiving federal funds provide victims of sexual assault with information and access to EC.

Despite the fact that contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion, far too many insurance policies do not cover them. While most employment-related insurance policies in the United States cover prescription drugs in general, many do not include equitable coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Although 21 states now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they cover other prescription drugs, 29 states still have no corresponding law on the books. Out of pocket expenses for contraception can be costly. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, much of which is due to reproductive health-related supplies and services.

The Prevention First Act requires that private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services.

Madam Speaker, it is critical in any discussion of reproductive rights to devote time to teenagers, who face the consequences of so many of these issues more acutely than other age groups. Teens face additional barriers regarding access to services and information. Sixty percent of teens have sex before graduating high school. Those who receive comprehensive sexuality education that includes discussion of contraception as well as abstinence are more likely than those who receive abstinence-only messages to delay sex, to have fewer partners, and to use contraceptives when they do become sexually active. Efforts by conservatives to restrict access to family planning services and promote abstinence-only education programs--which are prohibited from discussing the benefits of contraception--actually jeopardize adolescent health and run counter to the views of many mainstream medical groups.

Nearly 50 percent of new cases of STDs occur among people ages 15 to 24, even though this age bracket makes up just a quarter of the sexually active population. Clearly, teens have the most to lose when faced with an unintended pregnancy or an STD infection.

Moreover, 1 in 3 girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school. Children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. Improving access to contraceptive services and information does not cause non-sexually active teens to start having sex. Instead, teens need information to help them both postpone sexual activity and to protect themselves if they do become sexually active. A November 2006 study of declining pregnancy rates among teens concluded that the reduction in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 is primarily the result of increased use of contraceptives.

The Prevention First Act provides funding to public and private entities to establish or expand their teenage pregnancy prevention programs. This bill also provides for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs that teach young people about abstinence, health, and contraceptives. Moreover, this bill requires federally funded programs that provide information on the use of contraceptives to ensure that the information is medically accurate and includes health benefits and failure rates.

Madam Speaker, virtually everyone can agree that reducing unintended pregnancies, lowering STD infection rates, and promoting the health of all women and their children, regardless of their economic or social situation, are important public health goals. It should come as no surprise that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included family planning in their published list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.'' My bill, the Prevention First Act, will improve access to family planning services for women in need throughout America, and will go a long way toward fulfilling the promise of this important public health achievement.

Madam Speaker, I urge every Member to stand with the women of our country and to support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to humbly honor the life of one of America's most courageous pioneers in the civil rights movement--Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was born 189 years ago this month, and although it has been over a century since he has walked this earth, his imprint on American history remains.

For the past 21 years, I have had the privilege of representing Rochester, New York in Congress; and the city's historic commitment to the advancement of progressive causes has always served as an inspiration to me. When I am standing on the House floor, exhausted by another debate to protect our civil liberties, my spirit is reinvigorated when I think of Frederick Douglass' Rochester newspaper, the North Star, and the phrase printed on its masthead: ``Right is of no sex--Truth is of no color--God is the Father of us all, and we are all Brethren.''

Beyond being a source of inspiration, Frederick Douglass is the subject of adoration as one of America's bravest heroes. After he escaped slavery in 1838, he devoted the remainder of his life to freeing other slaves and to ending the practice of slavery itself. Upon settling in Rochester, he used the city's location near the Canadian border to lead local Underground Railroad activities, giving sanctuary to freedom seekers as they fled from slavery, oppression, and injustice.

In addition to his work in the abolitionist movement, Douglass fought to ensure that freed slaves were treated fairly. In 1863, Douglass met with President Lincoln to discuss the treatment of black soldiers in the civil war. He later met with President Andrew Johnson to discuss black suffrage. His tireless efforts in support of freedom and equality laid the ground work for future civil rights movements.

Intolerant of any injustice, Douglass worked closely with another one of Rochester's leading progressive advocates, Susan B. Anthony, to fight for women's suffrage. In fact, he used his North Star newspaper not only to denounce slavery, but also to advocate for women's rights.

Douglass found a home in Rochester among the progressive activists of the mid-1800 who fought for social reforms, the peace movement, and universal equality. It is certainly no surprise that Frederick Douglass felt a special connection to the City of Rochester, and chose to be buried here.

Madam Speaker, Frederick Douglass' persistence, perseverance, and pertinacity serve as a timeless source of inspiration for Americans struggling for freedom against today's injustices. I urge my colleagues to join with me in celebrating and honoring Frederick Douglass' birth- month. America and the City of Rochester are fortunate to have had such an outstanding leader among us. We must never forget his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 116 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007. It may seem strange that we are doing that at this late date.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money given to it by the American people, but the last Congress failed to live up to this duty. Of the 11 appropriations bills it was supposed to pass in 2006, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, left for the incoming Democratic Congress to deal with.

My fellow Democrats and I could have approached this responsibility in the way it was approached last year, but we promised to run the House differently, to run it responsibly, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

We had a mess to clean up, Mr. Speaker. The budget failures of the past Republican Congress have vastly increased our national debt, but they did more than that. They left agencies, States and localities in limbo for months concerning their future funding. What is more, we have seen an explosion in earmarks over the last 12 years in Washington, earmarks that had greased the wheels of an out-of-control congressional machinery.

The number of earmarks approved by the House had, according to estimates by even the most conservative of groups, doubled and tripled in recent Congresses, and for every shameful, unjustifiable bridge to nowhere that was exposed and shouted down by the public, many more questionable earmarks slipped through undetected, a few lines here or there in a large bill, misspending the people's money and taking advantage of their trust.

The Democrats have pledged to fundamentally reform the way earmarks are passed into law by this body, to bring transparency to a process that until recently had been deliberately shrouded in darkness.

The Rules reform package that we enacted on the first day of this Congress will shed new and much-needed light on the earmarking process. It will require the full disclosure of all earmarks proposed by Members of the House. If a project is worth funding, then the Representative requesting it should have no qualms with standing up publicly on its behalf.

But the earmarks in the budget bills left undone by Republicans last Congress did not have any such standards applied to them, and so Democrats have decided to rid this CR of all earmarks. It was a difficult decision and one which we all had to justify to our constituents back home. But in the end, it was a necessary step to bring forth a new day in the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, and cleaning up the mess we inherited required difficult choices between bad alternatives.

But I am very pleased that despite it all the legislation does contain increases in funding for critical programs affecting the lives of millions of people at home and around the world.

Spending on veterans health care is increased by $3.6 billion above the 2006 spending level. Spending on Pell Grants for the first time in 5 years is increased by $615.4 million. The NIH is going to receive an additional $619.6 million.

Other increases are going to support public housing, crime and law enforcement, and domestic transportation needs.

The bill even has a global focus, granting an additional $1.3 million to expand the efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis internationally.

Mr. Speaker, the minority, I predict, will claim that the closed rule under which we are debating this bill is a violation of the spirit of the House and a rejection of the promises Democrats made last year to open up the legislative process.

Let me be very clear, extremely clear about the past record of the House. Since 1997, the House has voted on 75 continuing resolutions, and all of them, 100 percent, were considered under a closed rule process with no amendments allowed. What is more, a third of those continuing resolutions contained substantive policy changes.

In addition to that extensive precedent, the House has already fully debated and considered eight of the appropriations measures contained here. To do so again would take us all year, and we do not have that luxury, not with the many challenges that confront our Nation at this moment in history.

Under the circumstances left for us by the former majority, we have done the best we could. We have produced a bill that will keep the government functioning and a bill that, despite its flaws, is a breath of fresh air compared with how appropriations legislation used to be handled in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are ready for a new direction. They have proved that in this country, and that is why they put a new kind of Congress in power. This Congress is going to be defined not just by the way it does business, but by the kind of business it conducts.

This Congress is not going to pass the buck, leaving unfinished business for others to handle and leaving problems for others to fix. Democrats are making the tough choices the American people expect us to make and that they elected us to make.

At the end of the day, that is what real leadership is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Just as a response to my colleague from Washington to remind him that, just a month ago, the minority was the majority. If he thinks the things he points out today were serious problems, he should have fixed them then.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to Mr. Obey from Wisconsin for whatever he wants to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to Mr. Obey of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that everybody understands that the money we are operating under is the money that the Republicans voted last year to spend. We are under their spending levels, not ours, so the complaints ring hollow.

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

Amendment in the nature of a substitute:

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H. J.

Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order

against the joint resolution and against its consideration

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule

XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint

resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on

the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Appropriations; (2) the amendment in section 2 of this

resolution if offered by Representative Walden of Oregon or

his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of

any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be

separately debatable for one hour equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

Page 39, after line 24, insert the following:

``Sec. 20327. Of the uncosted balances available from funds

appropriated under Section 130 of Division H of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199)

under the heading `Department of Energy, Energy Programs,

Science', as amended by Section 315 of the Energy and Water

Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103),

for the Iowa Environmental and Education project in

Coralville, Iowa, $44,569,000 is rescinded.''.

Page 87, line 6, strike ``$25,423,250,000'' and insert

``$25,467,819,000''.

At the end of chapter 5 of title II of the division B being

added by section 2, add the following new section:

``Sec. 20522. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise

appropriated or made available by this division, $400,000,000

is appropriated for the purpose of making payments for fiscal

year 2007 under sections 102 and 103 of the Secure Rural

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public

Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note). The Secretary of the

Treasury shall use such funds to make such payments in lieu

of using funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, as

otherwise authorized by sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of

such Act.

``(b) There is hereby rescinded an amount equal to .00086

percent of the budget authority provided (or obligation limit

imposed) for fiscal year 2007 for any discretionary account

pursuant to this division.''.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 71, I arrived at the door when the vote was called. I was detained at the office. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act, which will provide Federal resources to preserve and promote one of America's greatest natural wonders.

Every time I make the long drive across my congressional district, I am reminded of how fortunate I am to represent a region with such a diverse geographic make-up. From the Ontario shoreline, to vast vineyards and apple orchards, to the waterfront on Lake Erie, Mother

Nature has bestowed some of her finest treasures upon western New York. But none are as recognized world-wide as Niagara Falls, which attracts more than 7 million visitors annually. The Niagara River Gorge is an exceptionally scenic corridor, carved by the movement of the falls beginning over 10,000 years ago. Federal recognition of this geological wonder and the Niagara frontier is long overdue.

The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will provide Federal resources to help heighten national appreciation for the falls' natural splendor and the region's contributions to our Nation's history. The bill is critically important to the district I represent. With the steady decline in manufacturing, the western New York economy has become increasingly dependent on tourism. In addition to recognizing the falls in our Nation's development, the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will help revitalize and strengthen the local economy by creating a comprehensive strategy to attract tourists to the region.

Niagara Falls is a geological wonder that has been a world-renowned tourist destination for more than 200 years. Rich in natural and cultural resources, the Niagara falls area has significant historical associations with Native Americans, early European exploration, the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Underground Railroad. In addition, the falls have long been an important site for hydroelectric power and ancillary industries. Together, these elements have greatly contributed to the development of the United States and deserve Federal recognition as a national landmark.

A National Heritage Area designation will heighten appreciation for the region, better preserve its natural and historic resources, improve coordination among existing programs at the site, enhance the quality of life, and expand the economy of the Niagara region. The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area will be comprised of the area stretching from the western boundary of the town of Wheatfield to the mouth of the Niagara River, and from the river to Lake Ontario. It will also include the city of Niagara Falls, the villages of Youngstown and Lewiston, and all land and water lying within these boundaries. The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area will be managed by a Federal Commission for its first 5 years in existence before being turned over to a local management entity. This bill has widespread public support, and a Niagara Falls National Heritage Area has been endorsed by the National Park Service.

Madam Speaker, Niagara Falls has always been a source of pride for western New York. But the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will help to solidify its standing as something more: an engine for the revitalization and promotion of our region's natural, historic, and scenic resources to residents and visitors alike. I look forward to working toward passage of this important legislation.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, let me confess off the top, it is true, I committed an act of honesty in the Rules Committee, something we hadn't seen in over 12 years.

I also explained at the time that rules H.R. 5 and H.R. 6 were coming up under the point of privilege with which we started this session.

We are working on an agenda that the minority would not or could not do and we are fulfilling our promise to the American people, and all the whining you can do and all that you can produce will not deter us from it. The majority is pleased and gratified by the minority votes on all of these issues.

I thought I heard a faint chorus yesterday after the bill on student loans was passed, I thought I heard someone singing, Free at last. Free at last.

Obviously, helping the majority to do these bills for the American people has not been any too painful for you. But these have not been addressed for 12 years. We said that we were going to. It was under the beginning rule of the personal privilege. There was nothing amiss there; we were simply being honest.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride today that I reintroduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I have championed this bill for nearly 12 years, and I am hopeful that this will be the year that it is finally enacted into law.

We all watched with excitement when the first phase of the Human Genome project was successfully completed in April 2003, as scientists finished sequencing the human genome. As a result of this breakthrough, scientists have now identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions, thereby increasing the potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases.

Genetic issues are insinuating themselves into not only health care decisions, but into many other facets of Americans' lives. For example, under a program called Dor Yeshorim, Hasidic youth take a battery of genetic tests to determine whether they are carriers for any of 10 serious genetic disorders. Young men and women who are both carriers for a given disorder are discouraged from courting each other, based on the fact that there would be a 25 percent chance that their children would be born with a genetic disorder.

Today, there are over 15,500 recognized genetic disorders, affecting 13 million Americans. Yet, each of us possesses some potentially lethal genes. And despite the scientific advances that are helping people prevent these diseases or diagnose them early, those who partake ofthis innovative technology become potential victims of genetic discrimination. This legislation works to eliminate that potential.

In the past, some have called this legislation ``a solution in search of a problem'' and suggest that genetic discrimination is rare, if it even happens at all. Unfortunately this is not the case. Despite the fact that these tests are potentially life-saving, many Americans have not taken advantage of this technology because they fear discrimination by insurance companies and their employers.

And these fears are not unfounded. Throughout the 1970s, many African Americans were denied jobs, educational opportunities, and insurance based on their carrier status for sickle cell anemia, despite the fact that a carrier lacked the two copies of a mutation necessary to get sick. In 1998, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in Berkeley was found to have been performing tests for syphilis, pregnancy, and sickle cell on employees without their knowledge or consent for years. In 2000, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad performed genetic tests on employees without their knowledge or consent.

These abuses have only fed the public fear of genetic discrimination. Much to the detriment of America's public health and the future benefits of scientific research, this fear

has led many individuals to decide against having genetic tests or participating in genetic research.

A study conducted from 2001 to 2003, surveyed 86,859 adults about their willingness to undergo genetic testing. The results, published in June 2005, revealed that 40 percent of participants surveyed felt genetic testing was not a good idea for fear that health insurance companies might deny or drop them from their insurance plan.

The Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University conducted similar surveys. In 2002, 85 percent of those surveyed did not want employers to have access to their genetic information. By 2004, that number had risen to 92 percent. In 2002, 68 percent of those surveyed said their genetic information should be kept private from health insurers; by 2004, it had increased to 80 percent.

Fears about privacy do not just resonate with the public. Health care professionals are also hesitant to make their genetic information available. In one survey of genetic counselors, 108 out of 159 indicated that they would not submit charges for a genetic test to their insurance companies primarily because of the fear of discrimination. Twenty-five percent responded that they would use an alias to obtain a genetic test so as to reduce the risk of discrimination and maximize confidentiality. And, 60 percent indicated they would not share the information with a colleague, because of the need for privacy and fear of job discrimination.

Clearly, fear of discrimination plays a significant role in a person's decisions about whether to take a genetic test; whether to do it under one's own name; paying out of pocket versus seeking insurance reimbursement; and with whom the information would be shared, including health care providers, coworkers, and family members. The American people desperately want protections against genetic discrimination guaranteed under federal law and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act provides these protections.

This bill has broad support from the health community. The Coalition for Genetic Fairness which consists of 141 organizations has been outspoken in their support for GINA. Here in the House, along with my colleagues Ms. Biggert, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Walden, we are joined by over 135 original cosponsors. The Senate has passed it twice, and even the White House has come out in support of this bill.

GINA provides the protections from genetic discrimination that Americans want and would allow genetic research to move forward in this country so we can all live healthier lives.

I urge its quick passage.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record. On January 12, 2007 the Committee on Rules adopted by voice vote, a quorum being present the following attached rules:

Rules of the Committee on Rules

Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, for their tenacity on this bill. Stem cell research has the potential of reaching every man, woman, child on the planet. And without your tenacity, I am not sure we would still be here today. Thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a microbiologist and a citizen.

During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.

One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell research. I hope that today we can put aside our differences and together, achieve something that not just our scientists believe in, but the American people both want and deserve.

New medical technologies are always met with concern, but today many of the technologies are saving lives. Many of you remember the debate about organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, that we should never do that. The same will soon be said about embryonic stem cells, if we want it to be.

While all forms of stem cells should be researched, none offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells. An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown them to be the only cells capable of becoming any element of the body. They are the key to so many of the cures that we have long sought.

Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could be. There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer, including testicular and breast cancer. As a result, future breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their source.

Because of its potential, 70 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and we all know someone who has suffered from a disease that embryonic stem cells could one day cure. Why would we choose to deny hope to millions of Americans and people all over the world?

I should add that nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell research.

I just want to say that, for all my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill, let me ask you to step back and think about a loved one who could possibly benefit from this research, a neighbor, a friend. We have all got many of them.

Your vote today should be clear. Vote for scientific research to help people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but also as a microbiologist and a citizen who stands in awe of the life-saving potential we hold in our hands.

During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.

One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell research. The opinions of those on both sides of this issue are both heartfelt and sincere. But I hope that today, we can put aside our differences and unite to achieve something that not just our scientists believe in, but that the American people both want and deserve.

New medical technologies have always been met with skepticism and concern. There was a time in America when organ donations were experimental, and blood transfusions were considered too dangerous to consider. And yet today, these procedures are saving lives every hour.

The same will soon be said of embryonic stem cells--if we want it.

We may hear from some today that adult stem cells, cord blood cells, and amniotic fluid cells are just as promising as embryonic stem cells. But while they all show promise and should be researched, none of them offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells.

An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown embryonic stem cells to be the only type of stem cells capable of becoming any cell type in the body. They are the key to so many of the cures we have long sought after.

Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could be.

There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer. At UC San Francisco, scientists have discovered elevated activity of several embryonic stem cell genes in both testicular and breast cancers.

Based on this new finding, scientists are hypothesizing that misregulated embryonic stem cell genes could cause or at least advance cancer.

In fact, recent research is showing that up to 20 percent of all breast tumors are now suspected to originate in stem cells.

Scientists hope to learn more about the functions of genes in the cells that make up tumors. Their examinations could show why stem cells become cancerous and how doctors can treat them.

These breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their source.

Because of its potential, fully 70 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. And that's not surprising. Nearly everyone has suffered from a disease, or knows someone who has, that embryonic stem cell research could one day cure. Who wouldn't want to end the suffering of their son, sister, father, or friend? Why would we choose to deny this hope to millions of Americans?

Nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell research. Their scientists are taking great strides forward. In the end, enforcing restrictive federal research policies will only ensure that the United States will continue to lose many of our best and brightest scientists in this field to other countries.

Mr. Speaker, many of history's greatest medical killers now have cures because of scientific research. Tens of millions of lives have been saved as a result. Today, we have the potential to save millions more, and to leave other deadly diseases behind us.

I believe people in wheelchairs will one day walk again. I believe that we can bring about an entirely new form of health care in America--one defined by shorter hospital stays, fewer invasive procedures, and increasing benefits to both our patients and our bottom line.

The bill before us today presents an ethical solution to research that could potentially benefit almost every American. It gives our country hope--hope that one day we won't have to watch our mothers die of breast cancer, our grandparents suffer from Alzheimer's, and our own children endure Type I diabetes.

If we fail to fund embryonic stem cell research, I do not believe that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren, our mothers or fathers, or our grandparents in the eye and tell them we did everything we could to help them live a better, healthier, longer, happier life.

I urge my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill to step back and think of a loved one who could possibly benefit from this research. Your vote today should be clear.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I think, Mr. Dreier, my good friend, that we have done a remarkable job considering we have been sworn in less than 24 hours.

We are, by no means, through when we finish the 100 hours, and we will be moving toward, again, a more just democracy in this House in the future. We have never said this is all of it.

Frankly, everybody has known what is in this package since we first unveiled it at the Library of Congress last January.

In addition, many of our colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle are already on record through votes on many of the things that we want to bring up. Certainly minimum wage, absolutely stem cell research, and what we want to do on ending the war. And the war itself is not addressed.

You really liked those, did you, my colleague? You thought those were good reforms, the ones you are talking about?

I am sure you recall the time in the Rules Committee when we took this package and broke it down vote by vote, and the majority, led by you, voted down every single one of them. This seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Let me say, just watch us, Mr. Dreier. I want to reiterate what I said last night: We have no intention of keeping our foot on your necks the way you did us. And you are just going to have to watch us and see. But you have voted against every one of these, along with many other things.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and thank her for her wonderful job.

Mr. Speaker, today we are taking up the third title of the new Democrat rules package which will restore civility to this body.

The House was always intended to be a place where civil discourse and the courteous exchange of ideas would be the normal state of affairs.

But referring to this portion of our rules package as the ``civility'' title is actually a civil term for what we are talking about: The restoration of democracy itself in the House of Representatives.

Over the last several years, parliamentary procedure has broken down here, and I don't know anybody who can deny that. The standard practices of this body, carefully designed rules that are fundamental to our democratic process, fell by the wayside. Far too often, they have been shunned and ignored whenever doing so fit the needs of the former majority.

At the end of 2003, the House took up a Medicare prescription drug bill. It is a perfect example of the broken legislation produced by a broken process.

Instead of proceeding in an open and transparent manner, conference discussions were held behind closed doors for months, excluding all Democrats. On one occasion, Democratic conferee Charles Rangel and Marion Berry, men who have spent their lives and careers fighting for the good of the Nation, were not let into the conference room and were physically prevented from coming inside, even though they had been appointed to be there. Why? Because the lobbyists were in the room. The lobbyists were writing the bills, not the Members of Congress, and certainly not the minority who had no fingerprint at all on the Medicare prescription drug bill.

That abuse of secrecy was for a good reason: It was bad for the country and the Republican conferees didn't want anybody to find out about it. But one group that did learn of its dangerous provisions was the Republican conference, and when the bill was brought to the floor on November 21, a significant number of principled Republicans refused to vote for it.

And so once again civil and democratic procedures were denied. The Republican leadership had lost the vote after the standard time allotted; so they simply kept it open. I have never seen anything like that in my years in the House. There were Cabinet Secretaries all over the floor. There were strangers or people we didn't even know on the floor as for over 3 hours they worked on people who were in tears, many of them, to make them vote for that bill. There was also a blanket liability exemption for drug manufacturers inserted into the language without the approval of the conference about 5 hours after the conference had been signed off on, and so absolutely the process was broken. According to reports, the President of the Senate simply walked over to the House side and inserted 40 pages into the bill. It amounted to a multi-billion dollar gift to drug companies.

Mr. Frist's liability exemption had been brought up during the conference process, but it was rejected, just like the Medicare legislation of 2003 had, in truth, been rejected by this House. But in each case, Members of the Republican leadership wanted something they couldn't get through the democratic process, and so they ignored the process. By doing so, they did more than pass flawed legislation. They undermined our democracy itself.

This democracy is a system designed to prevent abuses like these from occurring, a system constructed and improved over two centuries so that bad legislation could be exposed and voted down.

If we profess to care about democracy, the proof will be in the process. And, Mr. Speaker, we must save the democratic process in this House. How hypocritical is it that we try to spread democracy to other parts of the world when we disallow it in the American House of Representatives?

The civility portion of the Democratic rules package before us today will prevent the abuses of recent years from happening again. It will prohibit the Speaker from holding open votes just so the outcome can be changed. Democracy is the art of compromise, not the art of coercion.

We are also going to insist that conference committees operate in an open and fair manner and that House conferees sign final conference papers at one time and in one place. In other words, they have to be present at the conference to do so. Never again will the esteemed Members of this body on either side of the aisle be locked out of this democracy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not go too far to say that about half of the American public was disenfranchised. Because of the closeness of the majority and minority, we left half of America out of the room.

This package prohibits the consideration of any conference report that was altered after it was signed by the conferees. If a conference can't agree on a legislative provision, it should not be in the conference report, period. If the Members of this body believe in the power of their ideas, there will be no need for tactics like those we have seen of late. An open, democratic, and civil process will promote good ideas and good legislation and will eliminate corruption and influence peddling.

In this new Congress and with this new rules package, we are standing up for our system of government and the needs of the people it serves and bringing back the government that they think they had, up until this last November. Democrats are going to return civility and common sense to this body, and I encourage everyone on both sides of the aisle to join us.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 10) and ask for its immediate consideration.