Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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.

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

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.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. Res. 1167 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, May 1, 2008, on legislation relating to the following three measures: (1) H.R. 5715, to protect the Federal student loan program. (2) H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. (3) a bill to provide for a temporary extension of the farm bill. The rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions. This is not an unusual procedure. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported a number of rules that provided for additional suspension days. This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these three time- sensitive measures. This will help us move these noncontroversial, yet important, legislative initiatives that have widespread bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1167.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, while I had not planned to be here at this point to debate gas prices, I feel compelled to put a few things on the record. Everybody knows that ExxonMobil announced first quarter profits totaling $11 billion, up 17 percent from last year and just shy of record profits last quarter. BP announced profits increased 63 percent; Royal Dutch-Shell 25 percent, and this increases the 5-year trend of record oil profits. While my colleagues say we have done nothing, the fact is that we've done a great deal and they've almost consistently voted against it. For example, we have tried more than once to take away the Federal subsidies to these oil companies, to the big five, because they are awash in money, and we see no reason for them to get more from the taxpayers than they're already getting at the pump. That has been consistently fought by both the Republican Party and the President. The President calls for the same policies that he has done all along and sort of hopes for the best. For the last 7 years, congressional Republicans and President Bush doled out billions of dollars in subsidies to the big oil companies, instead of working for an energy independence plan for America which was rarely discussed even during their tenure. We're committed to a new direction. Speaker Pelosi has called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. That would go a long way toward helping us with this. We have done this before, but President Bush says he doesn't think it would affect the price. On Friday, the New Direction Congress called on the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the law and to investigate record gas prices and possible market manipulation. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the FTC has the authority, but will not take it, to exercise the power to protect the consumer from skyrocketing energy costs. That is the Republican administration. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also included landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more efficient and to promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels per day by 2020, and it will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump. That is under the Democrats in Congress. We've also passed legislation in this House to crack down on oil price gouging, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and then, as I said, to repeal the subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in a renewable energy future. However, President Bush and the Republicans block these efforts every step of the way. Cracking down on oil price gouging was opposed by 140 Republicans in the House, including all of the Republican leadership except Mr. McCotter. Holding OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans, including most of the Republican leadership, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cole, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Granger. Repealing subsidies to the profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, almost unanimously, including all of the Republican leadership. And in every case, the Bush administration threatened to veto the bills. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate refused to even let them become bills to go to the President. We have a good and sufficient record here. We have planned to do more. We have done more than was done in the last 7 years to try to do that. With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1167 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following new paragraph: (4) Any bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I'm proud to introduce the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act. Consider for a moment that a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer is 1 in 7 today, compared to 1 in 22 in the 1940s--over half of the cases are unexplained. And, over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer, juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders. Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998. About 100,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States. However, 90 percent of these have never been fully tested for their impact on human health. Scientists have found that exposure to these synthetic chemicals disrupts hormone function and contributes to increased incidences of diseases. We already know the tragic impact that diethylstilbestrol, or DES, has had on the daughters of women who took this anti-miscarriage drug prescribed until 1971. Furthermore, a recent article in the Boston Globe highlighted the possible link between obesity and exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogen-like compound found in many common plastic objects. While the evidence is mounting that there is an association between these chemicals and hormone disruption, research remains limited, particularly on the impact on women and on how long-term, low-dose exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical stages of development. A couple years ago, I participated in a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group to find out what toxic substances I, in particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout our lives. My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of chemicals pumping through my vital organs every day. These chemicals include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under Federal investigation. The study also tested 10 newborn babies and found that on average, each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood at the time of birth. The fact that we have children coming into this world already polluted and at the same time, do not know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immoral. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not after they get into our bloodstreams. For several years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation that would allow NIH to expand its research on the impact of these chemical pollutants on the health of women and children. Once again, I am introducing two important bills that I hope will advance this research--the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act. The Environmental Hormone Disruption Act authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a comprehensive program to research and educate the public on the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. The Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act authorizes the NIEHS to establish multidisciplinary research centers to investigate how environmental factors may be related to women's health and disease prevention. Increased investments in research now could prevent and treat a broad range of diseases and disorders in future generations. I urge my colleagues to support these bills today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. My last speaker has not yet shown up.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will continue to reserve.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. No. I would like to have my time to close. The people who talk today about free trade never mention fair trade. That's been a problem for me for a long time. If it has not affected their economy, they're very lucky. I happen to represent an economy that has been greatly affected by trade policies that did nothing for the American workers, that did nothing to produce more jobs. The idea that we would again continue to follow that failed policy surprised me. But the most important thing today, we are not debating the Colombia- U.S. Free Trade Compact. What we are debating today is whether or not the House of Representatives is going to take back what it is entitled to take back, and that is, responsibility for scheduling matters that come to the floor for consideration. It is a very important point. We are perfectly entitled to do it under the law. It affects the Senate not a whit. And I am proud, frankly, to say again that our prerogatives, which have been slipping away from us for the past 12 years, all the Congress' prerogatives going to the executive department, that has to stop. And I not only want to stop this one, I would like to regain some of the abilities that we have lost already to represent the people who send us here. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this rules change today.