[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 71 (Thursday, May 1, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2956-H2961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 493, GENETIC
INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1156 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1156
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 493)
to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic
information with respect to health insurance and employment,
with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the
House, without intervention of any point of order except
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered
by the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor or
his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour, with 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Labor, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
{time} 1045
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
[[Page H2957]]
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.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my friend from New
York, the gentlewoman and chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding me this time to discuss this proposed rule for consideration
of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
Like my colleague, I too rise in support of this rule which would
allow the
[[Page H2958]]
House to agree with the Senate compromise and pass H.R. 493, the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA.
As the gentlewoman knows, this legislation has a long history. She's
worked on it for a long, long time, as we heard in testimony given to
the Rules Committee yesterday and the accolades that were given the
gentlewoman for her support of this, as well as the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). First introduced in 1995, it has been
cosponsored by 224 of our colleagues in this Congress. The House
overwhelmingly passed this legislation last April, and with the
Senate's recent approval and President Bush's pledged support, I look
forward to seeing this legislation signed into law quickly.
Madam Speaker, genetics are extremely important to determining the
health of every single individual. Each of us carries a handful of
genetic anomalies, some of which might cause us to be affected by
genetic conditions or affect the health of our children. There are
currently 1,200 genetic tests that can diagnose thousands of health
conditions. This number has grown exponentially from just around 100
genetic tests a short decade ago.
Every day scientists are learning more about the genetic causes of
many devastating diseases. Stopping these debilitating illnesses will
require the voluntary participation of hundreds of thousands of
Americans in the clinical research area needed to identify, test, and
approve effective treatments. This information is invaluable to
managing our country's health and bringing down the overall cost of
health care.
Currently, a few States provide protections for genetic information,
but most provide none. This leaves Americans with little to no
certainty about how their genetic rights are protected from State to
State.
Additionally, genetic information is not properly covered under the
current HIPAA regulations. It is necessary for Congress to provide
legal protection for genetic information and clinical trials so
Americans can get tested for health care concerns without fear of
misuse or discrimination. This legislation ensures that all will be
protected.
Currently, the fear of misuse of genetic information is preventing
people from getting these important genetic tests done. The refusal to
utilize effective genetic tests hurts individuals, researchers, and
doctors alike. Lack of testing denies individuals important medical
information that they could otherwise use to be proactively managing
their health with their doctor. The information garnered by these tests
also helps doctors to prescribe treatments and lifestyle changes with
increased success. The same information can be used by researchers to
effectively create targeted drugs and develop treatments.
Fear of discrimination has also caused a large number of people to
opt out of clinical trials. With fewer participants in clinical trials,
we will see slower development of treatments and beneficial drugs. In
addition, clinical trials provide patients in late stages of the
diseases with access to breakthrough treatments that might otherwise be
unavailable.
This House has correctly recognized this issue by protecting those
who obtain genetic tests in addition to those who volunteer to
participate in clinical research for genetic diseases. I would like to
commend my colleagues Sue Myrick, Kenny Hulshof, and Dr. Tom Price for
leading the efforts to protect the importance of these clinical trials.
But none of this would be any good today, Madam Speaker, if the
American public did not overwhelmingly support the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act. About 93 percent of Americans believe that if
someone has a genetic test, their employer should not have the right to
know the results. Republicans and Democrats want to see their genetic
information protected.
I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill and look
forward to its passage.
I once again want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert) and the gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the Rules
Committee, for their hard work.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.
Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me extend my
heartfelt gratitude to Chairwoman Slaughter for her years of struggle
to bring about this day and let everyone know that on this day, May 1
of 2008, we're beginning to apply our constitutional rights to protect
us against discrimination to health care so that one day very soon,
equal protection may mean equal treatment.
I rise today in strong support of the rule for H.R. 493, the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the underlying legislation.
As a physician and a geneticist, I fully understand the critical need
to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's genetic profile.
Specifically, this bipartisan, Republican-supported and Democrat-
supported bill would prohibit employers from using genetic screening
results in hiring, in assigning, and promoting people at work. It would
also bar insurers from making coverage choices or setting premiums
based on results of such genetic testing. By establishing these
protections, H.R. 493 will allow every citizen and their physicians to
benefit and participate in the progress that gene therapies provide for
all of us in early treatment and prevention of countless afflictions,
while maintaining their essential insurance coverage.
And perhaps in the near future, I will be able to rise here on the
House floor and ask that we support legislation to bring an end to all
forms of discrimination in health care. And after all, our
constitutional rights to protect us against discrimination should be
applied to the area of health care throughout the industry, not just to
genetic information, not just to one's skin color or one's skin
chemistry or the content and structure of one's bones, but to
everything in the human condition and every preexisting condition.
Let's begin to put discrimination where it belongs: in the past.
We are moving very quickly out of this information age into a time
when physicians will be able to diagnose and even treat your condition
before you feel it.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and vote in
favor of this important and tremendously progressive bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10
minutes to the lead cosponsor from the Republican side, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
And I thank you for being a cosponsor of this legislation and for all
your hard work on it.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill that is
made in order. And I just want to say that I'll be talking in general
debate too, but it was so important for me to come down here today to
speak during the rule also.
When the human genome project was completed in 2003, the House of
Representatives recognized it as one of the most significant scientific
accomplishments of the past 100 years. For the first time, individuals
actually could know their genetic risk of developing diseases such as
cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the list
goes on. And knowing that, they could take preventative measures to
decrease their risk of getting such a disease. Completion of the human
genome project and genetic testing spawned the personalized medicine
movement, focusing on catching diseases earlier, when they are cheaper
and easier to treat, or, even better, preventing the onset of the
disease in the first place.
But after investing $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to achieve this
breakthrough, Congress walked away and left the job undone. We left
people without any assurance that their genetic information wouldn't be
used against them. So, understandably, so many avoided this great
technology, never realizing the untold health benefits and savings.
This concern even spilled over to NIH, the National Institutes of
Health, where fear of genetic discrimination is currently the most
common reason for not participating in research on potentially
lifesaving genetic testing for breast cancer and colon cancer.
{time} 1100
Fully one-third of those eligible to participate decline to do this
for this
[[Page H2959]]
reason, undermining the development of new treatments and cures.
Madam Speaker, today Congress is here to settle some unfinished
business and provide Americans the protection against genetic
discrimination in health insurance and employment that they need to
utilize genetic testing without fear. It's just a great day that we are
here now, and it has been a long, long road to this. When you have got
three committees of jurisdiction on the House side and various
committees on the Senate side, to get all of these committees together
to come up with a bill, to craft a bill that everybody can agree on and
everybody will benefit by it, it's just a great day.
I really came to the floor to speak on the rule at this time, to
acknowledge my good friend and colleague, esteemed colleague and a true
leader on this issue, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms.
Slaughter. As my colleagues may know, and you just heard from Mr.
Sessions, Congresswoman Slaughter first introduced a version of this
bill in the 104th Congress. For the newest Members of this body, they
might not know that was the nineties. In 1995, to be exact.
So that Ms. Slaughter introduced this bill at this time, that far
back, is a testament to the foresight of my friend from New York. Just
think, the human genome project really was 2003. So she's had the
background in this scientific area to really have had that foresight
for so long ago. That she introduced it, still amazes me, and the hard
work. There were a lot of things that we worked out as far as the path
through these years. I first joined her I think it was in 2005 when we
introduced the bill again and again and again to reach this day.
So I really applaud her for her dedication to this cause, and her
perseverance. Working with her on this bill has been a real joy, and I
value our partnership and the historic legislation that it has
produced. I look forward to hand delivering this bill to the White
House with her. I think that that will be sooner than later.
Let me just say I want to highlight a few things and reasons for why
we should pass this rule and why we should pass this bill. Besides the
fact that we invested the $3.7 billion in the human genome, the bill is
needed to maintain high quality genetic research and clinical trials at
NIH. I think we have all emphasized that, that that is so important.
They don't have the whole body of people getting into the clinical
trials, which will then I think find the cure for these diseases.
Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that insurers and employers
should not be able to discriminate based on genetic information. This
bill passed the House last year 420-3. It passed the Senate last week
95-0. The bill has received three strong SAPs from the administration.
And last year, President Bush said, ``I really want to make it clear to
the Congress that I hope they pass the legislation that makes genetic
discrimination illegal.'' Newt Gingrich, who has been a strong, strong
supporter of genetic nondiscrimination said, and I quote, ``To not have
this bill is to cripple our ability to save lives.'' This legislation
is supported by over 500 organizations, including BIO and AHIP.
With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and I would like to thank
the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, for
her leadership, for her perseverance in moving this critical
legislation. She has been fighting for the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act for over 13 years. So we will herald her
leadership today on behalf of American families and all hardworking
folks across this country.
I am fortunate to serve on the Committee on Rules under her
leadership. The folks across this country should be very proud that we
have such a dedicated chairwoman leading the committee in the people's
House. I'd also like to salute Congresswoman Judy Biggert for her
participation and perseverance as well in moving this legislation and
fighting for it for so many years.
Madam Speaker, this New Direction Congress already has done a great
deal to strengthen antidiscrimination efforts for our Nation this year,
such as legislation that outlaws inequities in medical coverage for
mental health care. Today, we will end another form of discrimination
in the workplace and by health insurance companies.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act protects our neighbors
from being denied health coverage or being hired or keeping a job based
upon their God-given personal genetic traits. In my district in Tampa,
Florida, the University of South Florida Regional Genetics Program has
been doing great work in genetics research. Now they can do so much
more. People will be more willing to participate in genetics research.
The testing, the genetic counseling for families with genetic
conditions, now they will not be so afraid and hiding because they fear
they would be discriminated against if someone learned that they might
have an inclination for breast cancer or diabetes or some other
disease.
The scientific research opportunities are endless, and under this
bill people will be protected and employers will not be able to request
or purchase genetic information about employees or their families. Any
information found indirectly may not be used against an employee or
disclosed. Further, this legislation would outlaw health insurance
companies' ability to cancel, deny, or change the terms of individual
plans based upon their genetic background.
This is a civil rights issue and a privacy issue, and this
legislation is an absolute necessity to provide protection for
Americans in the workplace and within their health coverage. The cost
of health care in America is burdensome enough without an added concern
that coverage may be unethically jeopardized based on genetic
information.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill and again salute the leadership of Chairwoman Louise
Slaughter and Congresswoman Judy Biggert.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman
from New York that we do not have any additional speakers at this time,
so we will continue to reserve our time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank and congratulate my
dear friend from New York for a stellar achievement in her stellar work
here in the Congress, and to thank Mrs. Biggert, who has fought with
great vigor and enthusiasm for this bill.
Madam Speaker, here's what Ms. Slaughter and Mrs. Biggert have
achieved. Somewhere this morning, a family is going to get news that a
biopsy came back with bad news, that someone they love has a tumor, and
that family is going to go through the agony of the next couple of
months or even years of wondering if that person they love so much is
going to live or die.
Now the progress we have made in this country, thank God, has let
many more of those people live. But the ultimate progress is to get to
the genetic puzzle that makes that person susceptible to that tumor in
the first place. The way we are going to find the solution to that
puzzle is by gathering data by more and more people being willing to
share their genetic information with the brightest men and women in
this country.
Right now there's a justifiable fear that if you share your genetic
information, someone may misuse it to deny you a job, deny you an
insurance policy, or hurt you in some other way. This bill lifts that
burden, lifts that fear, and will stimulate millions of Americans to
voluntarily, privately and safely participate so they can be part of
finding this puzzle.
What Chairwoman Slaughter has accomplished today, Madam Speaker, is
that some day is coming, and I hope it's soon, when people will get the
right answer all the time to that question, when the cure will be here,
the pain will be gone, and the hope will prevail. There's a lot of
things we do in this
[[Page H2960]]
chamber that have transitory significance. What will happen in a few
hours will benefit people around the world for years to come.
This is a singular achievement. I congratulate the chairwoman. And as
a father and a husband, I thank her for what she's done.
Mr. SESSIONS. We will reserve our time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
Ms. ESHOO. I want to first begin by saluting our colleague, Louise
Slaughter, and Mrs. Biggert, who has worked so hard on this. This is
really all about the future, except we had to struggle for 13 years in
order to recognize it. But today, we do. And it is a singular
extraordinary achievement, not only on the watch of Chairwoman
Slaughter, but today for the full House to pass this legislation.
We know that in the makeup of our humanity is a genetic profile.
Researchers and scientists have demonstrated what the potential is if
in fact, not only through the human genome project, the sequencing, and
the discovery of all that is hidden in it, what that portends for
humanity. But there's another side of this, and that is a darker side.
The darker side is entitled: Discrimination. That if that information,
our genetic makeup is used by insurers to discriminate against people.
So today what we are doing is eliminating that block, that
discrimination that stands in the way of the fullness of the potential
of our genetic profile and how it can be not only accumulated but used
to the benefit of humanity. That is what this legislation represents.
When we pass it and the President signs it into law, this legislation
will not only end the discrimination and all that is attendant to it,
but that from this day forward the principles of preventive medicine,
the reduction of health care costs, the advancement of research, and
the saving of lives will be the order of the day.
I salute you, my colleague. Well done. You have earned your keep in
the Congress.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further requests for time. Let me ask my
colleague if he is prepared to close.
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Madam Speaker, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question
is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to
consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce our
high gas prices that we have in this country, to help consumers, and to
require the Speaker of the House to submit her secret plan to lower gas
prices.
Back on April 24, 2006, over 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi issued the
following statement, which I quote, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it
is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican
rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil
and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon
on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and
double the price that it was when President Bush first came into
office.''
{time} 1115
Madam Speaker, most Americans would consider it a blessing if we were
only paying $2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline and the only thing
they really couldn't afford is this head-in-the-sand Democrat Congress
that refuses to consider or to do anything to solve the problem.
In that same press release, Speaker Pelosi went on to claim,
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas
prices.''
Well, I am not sure what they are waiting for, because even after
passing the no-energy energy bill through the House a number of times,
the cost of the Pelosi premium price increase continues to rise, with
the average cost of gasoline over $3.62, hitting consumers at the pump
every time they go fill up their cars.
In fact, Madam Speaker, as yesterday's Politico article Gas Prices
Fuel Effort to Jam GOP makes clear, rather than seizing the opportunity
to create opportunities to do something about these high gas prices, to
bring in commonsense, bipartisan, supply-side solutions to the problem
that help consumers, the Democrats are using them as a wedge issue, as
they see it, to score political points, which does nothing to bring
down the high cost of gasoline and only contributes to the Congress'
abysmal low ratings.
Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that it really might secretly
be this secret plan. This secret plan, even though Speaker Pelosi said
it was to bring down gas prices, I think it is all about raising gas
prices closer to $5 a gallon. Of course, we know what this does. This
causes an American transfer of payments to overseas places, just like
Dubai. It is American consumers that are paying for and building Dubai.
And the reason why is because the Democratic policies have taken off-
limits the opportunity for Americans to be self-independent, because we
can't do our own drilling in this country, where billions of barrels of
oil reside.
By voting ``no'' on this previous question, Members can take a stand;
a stand against the statements that we have heard about trying to
increase gasoline prices, but while only taxing oil companies.
We demand to see this ``private'' and ``secret'' plan to reduce gas
prices that the Democrats have been hiding from the American people
since taking office and control of Congress. I for one would love to
see this plan. But I am afraid that, much like their other campaign
promises to run the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history,
it simply does not exist.
Madam Speaker, American consumers cannot handle the high prices at
the pump. We are demanding to know what this secret plan is to reduce
gasoline prices below the level of 2 years ago. We need help. Americans
all across this country will stand behind those that vote ``no'' to do
something now about the problems, rather than trying to blame it on
somebody else. If it was Congress' problem 2 years ago, it certainly
should be Congress' problem today.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material placed in the Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1156
Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the operation of the previous question, it
shall be in order to consider any amendment to the Senate
amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have
the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon
of regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such
[[Page H2961]]
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 of
rule XXI.
Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall
introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill
to provide a common sense plan to help bring down
skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the
appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1
of rule X.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________