[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7494-7499]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 7495]]

bones. I remember when we were fighting for the Office of Women's 
Health, the statistic we used for osteoporosis was that we spent 
between $20 and $30 billion a year, and this was years ago, 10 or 15, 
all that much money to treat osteoporosis. At that point we had no 
treatment for it. We just tried to do the best we could. We have over 
time achieved some treatments for osteoporosis, but think what would 
happen if once we find that gene, we are able to manipulate that gene 
or change it and prevent osteoporosis altogether?
  The great thing about this science is the limitless possibility to 
cure human conditions without long hospital stays, without invasive 
surgeries, and there are possibilities there for an entirely new way 
for us to provide health care.
  Now, consider if these tests we know that can tell a woman if she has 
a family history of breast cancer, if she has a genetic predisposition. 
For at least the 10 years, I have been told by women who are in that 
condition and also by their physicians that they have recommended to 
them that until a bill such as the one we are passing today becomes law 
in this country, they should not put at risk their health insurance, 
many of them who are the sole provider for health insurance for their 
families, or their jobs. We believe, the estimates are, that about 22 
percent of Americans have already been discriminated against. We have 
numerous cases of people who have lost their jobs. So the most 
important thing to show what rank discrimination that has been is that 
having the gene is only predictive. It does not say that you are doomed 
to have it. Indeed, it could be 20 or 30 years away, if at all. To deny 
a person health insurance and employment on that kind of proposition is 
nothing but discrimination.
  We know now that numbers of people are going to go out to get the 
tests that they need to be able to plan for the rest of their lives, 
constituents that we have all had with Alzheimer's who want to plan for 
their future. So in addition to improving health care for millions, 
it's going to give the scientists and our medical researchers 
invaluable insight on how to combat and even cure diseases in the 
future.
  I don't think we're going to realize what a wonderful day this is for 
us until someone in your family is faced with this and that you can 
have a cure for them. It is totally remarkable. I honestly believe 
that, being here in Congress for 22 years, which has meant so much to 
me and for which I am so grateful to my constituents, that this piece 
of legislation and what we have done here is the most important thing 
that I shall ever do in my life and certainly in my time as a 
legislator.
  I'm enormously grateful to everybody who has supported this and all 
the people who have worked on it all these many years, never getting 
discouraged, always working every 2 years, refiling the bill, getting 
all the cosponsors, and fighting for passage. That wonderful day now 
has come. I especially want to give my thanks to my colleague Judy 
Biggert for all the wonderful work that she has done.
  Madam Speaker, to give you an idea of the potential that exists, 
consider that genetic tests can tell a woman with a family history of 
breast cancer if she has the genetic mutation that causes it long 
before the cancer develops.
  Armed with this information, this woman can make important health 
decisions on when to engage in preventative care and when to seek early 
treatment.
  And in doing so, we can cut down on hospital stays and invasive 
surgeries while allowing medical treatments to be more personalized.
  Madam Speaker, in addition to improving health care for millions of 
individuals, genetic testing gives our scientists and medical 
researchers invaluable insight into how to combat and, perhaps, even 
cure these diseases in the future.
  However, for the potential of genetic research to be realized, we 
need to make genetic testing something that is commonplace, rather than 
something that is feared.
  Unfortunately, because no one has perfect genes, no one is immune to 
genetic discrimination. And the threat of discrimination is holding men 
and women back from participating in clinical trials that will lead to 
the medical breakthroughs of the 21st Century.
  Madam Speaker, their fears are not unfounded. Genetic discrimination 
is real and is happening today.
  A 2001 survey of employer medical testing practices found that 1.3 
percent of companies test employees for sickle cell anemia, 0.4 percent 
test for Huntington's Disease, and 20.1 percent ask about family 
medical history.
  During the 1970s, many African Americans were denied jobs and health 
insurance based on their carrier status for sickle cell anemia.
  More recently, many have heard about the 2002 Burlington Northern 
Santa Fe Corporation case where the company paid a $2.2 million 
settlement after it tested its employees for a genetic marker dubiously 
associated with carpel tunnel syndrome.
  In North Carolina, a woman was fired after a genetic test revealed 
her risk for a lung disorder even though she had already begun the 
treatments that would keep her healthy.
  There was even an instance of an adoption agency refusing to allow a 
woman at risk for Huntington's disease to adopt a child.
  These abuses have only fed the public fear of genetic discrimination, 
leading many Americans to forgo genetic testing even if it may help 
avert premature death.
  Sixty-six percent of Americans are concerned about how their genetic 
information would be stored and who would have access to it.
  Seventy-two percent of the American public believes that the 
government should establish laws and regulations to protect the privacy 
of one's genetic information.
  Madam Speaker, genetic discrimination is wrong on two fronts.
  First, it is critical to remember that simply carrying a given 
genetic mutation does not guarantee that one will develop the disorder. 
It merely confers a level of risk upon the carrier.
  Given that scientists cannot accurately predict when or whether a 
carrier will develop a genetic disorder, it is illogical to allow this 
information to be used by health insurers and employers for 
discriminatory purposes.
  Secondly, and very importantly, if individuals do not participate in 
clinical trials, we will never be able to reap the real benefits of 
genetic science.
  In a 2003 editorial, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human 
Genome Research Institute, and James Watson made a persuasive argument 
in favor of non-discrimination legislation like GINA.
  They wrote, and I quote: ``Genetic discrimination has the potential 
to affect people's lives in terms of jobs and insurance, but there is 
another dimension as well: It can slow the pace of the scientific 
discovery that will yield crucial medical advances.'' End quote.
  Madam Speaker, as I have mentioned, this legislation began 13 years 
ago and has had quite a ride going back and forth between the House and 
the Senate.
  I would like to take a moment to speak briefly about the evolution of 
this bill and the agreements that we have made so that it could end up 
here today.
  In order for us to move forward, we addressed some of the concerns 
about the legislation, specifically about the threat of frivolous 
lawsuits.
  Several years back, we made sure that if an employer inadvertently 
receives a person's genetic information, they could not be sued unless 
they used that information to discriminate against the employee.
  Within the past few weeks, we were able to work out a clarification 
regarding the so-called ``firewall'' issue.
  This agreement makes both sides happy and still preserves 40 years of 
civil rights law by ensuring that employers are held accountable under 
civil rights remedies.
  In addition, this bill requires that before an individual can go to 
court, the EEOC has to review their claim and determine if it has 
merit.
  I am very pleased that we were able to work together to ensure the 
success of this critical legislation.
  And, Madam Speaker, while there have been some opponents to this bill 
over the years, there have mostly been allies.
  I hold here in my hand 514 letters of support from a wide spectrum of 
health, scientific, and medical-related organizations.
  Here in Congress, we have over 220 cosponsors, both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Just over a year ago, this body passed GINA 420-3, and last week, the 
Senate once again passed this bill unanimously by a vote of 95-0.
  Even the White House has come out in support of genetic 
nondiscrimination legislation.
  Before I close, I want to take a moment to thank the lead Republican 
cosponsor of this bill, Congresswoman Judy Biggert. Without her and her 
staffs hard work, today would simply not have been possible.
  I also want to thank Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for her strong advocacy 
on behalf of this bill over the years.

[[Page 7496]]

  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 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

[[Page 7497]]

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 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. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank and congratulate my

[[Page 7498]]

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 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.

[[Page 7499]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________