Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Just as a response to my colleague from Washington to remind him that, just a month ago, the minority was the majority. If he thinks the things he points out today were serious problems, he should have fixed them then. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act, which will provide Federal resources to preserve and promote one of America's greatest natural wonders. Every time I make the long drive across my congressional district, I am reminded of how fortunate I am to represent a region with such a diverse geographic make-up. From the Ontario shoreline, to vast vineyards and apple orchards, to the waterfront on Lake Erie, Mother Nature has bestowed some of her finest treasures upon western New York. But none are as recognized world-wide as Niagara Falls, which attracts more than 7 million visitors annually. The Niagara River Gorge is an exceptionally scenic corridor, carved by the movement of the falls beginning over 10,000 years ago. Federal recognition of this geological wonder and the Niagara frontier is long overdue. The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will provide Federal resources to help heighten national appreciation for the falls' natural splendor and the region's contributions to our Nation's history. The bill is critically important to the district I represent. With the steady decline in manufacturing, the western New York economy has become increasingly dependent on tourism. In addition to recognizing the falls in our Nation's development, the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will help revitalize and strengthen the local economy by creating a comprehensive strategy to attract tourists to the region. Niagara Falls is a geological wonder that has been a world-renowned tourist destination for more than 200 years. Rich in natural and cultural resources, the Niagara falls area has significant historical associations with Native Americans, early European exploration, the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Underground Railroad. In addition, the falls have long been an important site for hydroelectric power and ancillary industries. Together, these elements have greatly contributed to the development of the United States and deserve Federal recognition as a national landmark. A National Heritage Area designation will heighten appreciation for the region, better preserve its natural and historic resources, improve coordination among existing programs at the site, enhance the quality of life, and expand the economy of the Niagara region. The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area will be comprised of the area stretching from the western boundary of the town of Wheatfield to the mouth of the Niagara River, and from the river to Lake Ontario. It will also include the city of Niagara Falls, the villages of Youngstown and Lewiston, and all land and water lying within these boundaries. The Niagara Falls National Heritage Area will be managed by a Federal Commission for its first 5 years in existence before being turned over to a local management entity. This bill has widespread public support, and a Niagara Falls National Heritage Area has been endorsed by the National Park Service. Madam Speaker, Niagara Falls has always been a source of pride for western New York. But the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area Act will help to solidify its standing as something more: an engine for the revitalization and promotion of our region's natural, historic, and scenic resources to residents and visitors alike. I look forward to working toward passage of this important legislation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, let me confess off the top, it is true, I committed an act of honesty in the Rules Committee, something we hadn't seen in over 12 years. I also explained at the time that rules H.R. 5 and H.R. 6 were coming up under the point of privilege with which we started this session. We are working on an agenda that the minority would not or could not do and we are fulfilling our promise to the American people, and all the whining you can do and all that you can produce will not deter us from it. The majority is pleased and gratified by the minority votes on all of these issues. I thought I heard a faint chorus yesterday after the bill on student loans was passed, I thought I heard someone singing, Free at last. Free at last. Obviously, helping the majority to do these bills for the American people has not been any too painful for you. But these have not been addressed for 12 years. We said that we were going to. It was under the beginning rule of the personal privilege. There was nothing amiss there; we were simply being honest.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride today that I reintroduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I have championed this bill for nearly 12 years, and I am hopeful that this will be the year that it is finally enacted into law. We all watched with excitement when the first phase of the Human Genome project was successfully completed in April 2003, as scientists finished sequencing the human genome. As a result of this breakthrough, scientists have now identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions, thereby increasing the potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases. Genetic issues are insinuating themselves into not only health care decisions, but into many other facets of Americans' lives. For example, under a program called Dor Yeshorim, Hasidic youth take a battery of genetic tests to determine whether they are carriers for any of 10 serious genetic disorders. Young men and women who are both carriers for a given disorder are discouraged from courting each other, based on the fact that there would be a 25 percent chance that their children would be born with a genetic disorder. Today, there are over 15,500 recognized genetic disorders, affecting 13 million Americans. Yet, each of us possesses some potentially lethal genes. And despite the scientific advances that are helping people prevent these diseases or diagnose them early, those who partake ofthis innovative technology become potential victims of genetic discrimination. This legislation works to eliminate that potential. In the past, some have called this legislation ``a solution in search of a problem'' and suggest that genetic discrimination is rare, if it even happens at all. Unfortunately this is not the case. Despite the fact that these tests are potentially life-saving, many Americans have not taken advantage of this technology because they fear discrimination by insurance companies and their employers. And these fears are not unfounded. Throughout the 1970s, many African Americans were denied jobs, educational opportunities, and insurance based on their carrier status for sickle cell anemia, despite the fact that a carrier lacked the two copies of a mutation necessary to get sick. In 1998, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in Berkeley was found to have been performing tests for syphilis, pregnancy, and sickle cell on employees without their knowledge or consent for years. In 2000, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad performed genetic tests on employees without their knowledge or consent. These abuses have only fed the public fear of genetic discrimination. Much to the detriment of America's public health and the future benefits of scientific research, this fear has led many individuals to decide against having genetic tests or participating in genetic research. A study conducted from 2001 to 2003, surveyed 86,859 adults about their willingness to undergo genetic testing. The results, published in June 2005, revealed that 40 percent of participants surveyed felt genetic testing was not a good idea for fear that health insurance companies might deny or drop them from their insurance plan. The Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University conducted similar surveys. In 2002, 85 percent of those surveyed did not want employers to have access to their genetic information. By 2004, that number had risen to 92 percent. In 2002, 68 percent of those surveyed said their genetic information should be kept private from health insurers; by 2004, it had increased to 80 percent. Fears about privacy do not just resonate with the public. Health care professionals are also hesitant to make their genetic information available. In one survey of genetic counselors, 108 out of 159 indicated that they would not submit charges for a genetic test to their insurance companies primarily because of the fear of discrimination. Twenty-five percent responded that they would use an alias to obtain a genetic test so as to reduce the risk of discrimination and maximize confidentiality. And, 60 percent indicated they would not share the information with a colleague, because of the need for privacy and fear of job discrimination. Clearly, fear of discrimination plays a significant role in a person's decisions about whether to take a genetic test; whether to do it under one's own name; paying out of pocket versus seeking insurance reimbursement; and with whom the information would be shared, including health care providers, coworkers, and family members. The American people desperately want protections against genetic discrimination guaranteed under federal law and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act provides these protections. This bill has broad support from the health community. The Coalition for Genetic Fairness which consists of 141 organizations has been outspoken in their support for GINA. Here in the House, along with my colleagues Ms. Biggert, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Walden, we are joined by over 135 original cosponsors. The Senate has passed it twice, and even the White House has come out in support of this bill. GINA provides the protections from genetic discrimination that Americans want and would allow genetic research to move forward in this country so we can all live healthier lives. I urge its quick passage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, for their tenacity on this bill. Stem cell research has the potential of reaching every man, woman, child on the planet. And without your tenacity, I am not sure we would still be here today. Thank you for that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a microbiologist and a citizen. During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community. One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell research. I hope that today we can put aside our differences and together, achieve something that not just our scientists believe in, but the American people both want and deserve. New medical technologies are always met with concern, but today many of the technologies are saving lives. Many of you remember the debate about organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, that we should never do that. The same will soon be said about embryonic stem cells, if we want it to be. While all forms of stem cells should be researched, none offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells. An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown them to be the only cells capable of becoming any element of the body. They are the key to so many of the cures that we have long sought. Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could be. There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer, including testicular and breast cancer. As a result, future breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their source. Because of its potential, 70 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and we all know someone who has suffered from a disease that embryonic stem cells could one day cure. Why would we choose to deny hope to millions of Americans and people all over the world? I should add that nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell research. I just want to say that, for all my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill, let me ask you to step back and think about a loved one who could possibly benefit from this research, a neighbor, a friend. We have all got many of them. Your vote today should be clear. Vote for scientific research to help people. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but also as a microbiologist and a citizen who stands in awe of the life-saving potential we hold in our hands. During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community. One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell research. The opinions of those on both sides of this issue are both heartfelt and sincere. But I hope that today, we can put aside our differences and unite to achieve something that not just our scientists believe in, but that the American people both want and deserve. New medical technologies have always been met with skepticism and concern. There was a time in America when organ donations were experimental, and blood transfusions were considered too dangerous to consider. And yet today, these procedures are saving lives every hour. The same will soon be said of embryonic stem cells--if we want it. We may hear from some today that adult stem cells, cord blood cells, and amniotic fluid cells are just as promising as embryonic stem cells. But while they all show promise and should be researched, none of them offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells. An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown embryonic stem cells to be the only type of stem cells capable of becoming any cell type in the body. They are the key to so many of the cures we have long sought after. Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could be. There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer. At UC San Francisco, scientists have discovered elevated activity of several embryonic stem cell genes in both testicular and breast cancers. Based on this new finding, scientists are hypothesizing that misregulated embryonic stem cell genes could cause or at least advance cancer. In fact, recent research is showing that up to 20 percent of all breast tumors are now suspected to originate in stem cells. Scientists hope to learn more about the functions of genes in the cells that make up tumors. Their examinations could show why stem cells become cancerous and how doctors can treat them. These breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their source. Because of its potential, fully 70 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. And that's not surprising. Nearly everyone has suffered from a disease, or knows someone who has, that embryonic stem cell research could one day cure. Who wouldn't want to end the suffering of their son, sister, father, or friend? Why would we choose to deny this hope to millions of Americans? Nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell research. Their scientists are taking great strides forward. In the end, enforcing restrictive federal research policies will only ensure that the United States will continue to lose many of our best and brightest scientists in this field to other countries. Mr. Speaker, many of history's greatest medical killers now have cures because of scientific research. Tens of millions of lives have been saved as a result. Today, we have the potential to save millions more, and to leave other deadly diseases behind us. I believe people in wheelchairs will one day walk again. I believe that we can bring about an entirely new form of health care in America--one defined by shorter hospital stays, fewer invasive procedures, and increasing benefits to both our patients and our bottom line. The bill before us today presents an ethical solution to research that could potentially benefit almost every American. It gives our country hope--hope that one day we won't have to watch our mothers die of breast cancer, our grandparents suffer from Alzheimer's, and our own children endure Type I diabetes. If we fail to fund embryonic stem cell research, I do not believe that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren, our mothers or fathers, or our grandparents in the eye and tell them we did everything we could to help them live a better, healthier, longer, happier life. I urge my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill to step back and think of a loved one who could possibly benefit from this research. Your vote today should be clear.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think, Mr. Dreier, my good friend, that we have done a remarkable job considering we have been sworn in less than 24 hours. We are, by no means, through when we finish the 100 hours, and we will be moving toward, again, a more just democracy in this House in the future. We have never said this is all of it. Frankly, everybody has known what is in this package since we first unveiled it at the Library of Congress last January. In addition, many of our colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle are already on record through votes on many of the things that we want to bring up. Certainly minimum wage, absolutely stem cell research, and what we want to do on ending the war. And the war itself is not addressed.

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and thank her for her wonderful job. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking up the third title of the new Democrat rules package which will restore civility to this body. The House was always intended to be a place where civil discourse and the courteous exchange of ideas would be the normal state of affairs. But referring to this portion of our rules package as the ``civility'' title is actually a civil term for what we are talking about: The restoration of democracy itself in the House of Representatives. Over the last several years, parliamentary procedure has broken down here, and I don't know anybody who can deny that. The standard practices of this body, carefully designed rules that are fundamental to our democratic process, fell by the wayside. Far too often, they have been shunned and ignored whenever doing so fit the needs of the former majority. At the end of 2003, the House took up a Medicare prescription drug bill. It is a perfect example of the broken legislation produced by a broken process. Instead of proceeding in an open and transparent manner, conference discussions were held behind closed doors for months, excluding all Democrats. On one occasion, Democratic conferee Charles Rangel and Marion Berry, men who have spent their lives and careers fighting for the good of the Nation, were not let into the conference room and were physically prevented from coming inside, even though they had been appointed to be there. Why? Because the lobbyists were in the room. The lobbyists were writing the bills, not the Members of Congress, and certainly not the minority who had no fingerprint at all on the Medicare prescription drug bill. That abuse of secrecy was for a good reason: It was bad for the country and the Republican conferees didn't want anybody to find out about it. But one group that did learn of its dangerous provisions was the Republican conference, and when the bill was brought to the floor on November 21, a significant number of principled Republicans refused to vote for it. And so once again civil and democratic procedures were denied. The Republican leadership had lost the vote after the standard time allotted; so they simply kept it open. I have never seen anything like that in my years in the House. There were Cabinet Secretaries all over the floor. There were strangers or people we didn't even know on the floor as for over 3 hours they worked on people who were in tears, many of them, to make them vote for that bill. There was also a blanket liability exemption for drug manufacturers inserted into the language without the approval of the conference about 5 hours after the conference had been signed off on, and so absolutely the process was broken. According to reports, the President of the Senate simply walked over to the House side and inserted 40 pages into the bill. It amounted to a multi-billion dollar gift to drug companies. Mr. Frist's liability exemption had been brought up during the conference process, but it was rejected, just like the Medicare legislation of 2003 had, in truth, been rejected by this House. But in each case, Members of the Republican leadership wanted something they couldn't get through the democratic process, and so they ignored the process. By doing so, they did more than pass flawed legislation. They undermined our democracy itself. This democracy is a system designed to prevent abuses like these from occurring, a system constructed and improved over two centuries so that bad legislation could be exposed and voted down. If we profess to care about democracy, the proof will be in the process. And, Mr. Speaker, we must save the democratic process in this House. How hypocritical is it that we try to spread democracy to other parts of the world when we disallow it in the American House of Representatives? The civility portion of the Democratic rules package before us today will prevent the abuses of recent years from happening again. It will prohibit the Speaker from holding open votes just so the outcome can be changed. Democracy is the art of compromise, not the art of coercion. We are also going to insist that conference committees operate in an open and fair manner and that House conferees sign final conference papers at one time and in one place. In other words, they have to be present at the conference to do so. Never again will the esteemed Members of this body on either side of the aisle be locked out of this democracy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not go too far to say that about half of the American public was disenfranchised. Because of the closeness of the majority and minority, we left half of America out of the room. This package prohibits the consideration of any conference report that was altered after it was signed by the conferees. If a conference can't agree on a legislative provision, it should not be in the conference report, period. If the Members of this body believe in the power of their ideas, there will be no need for tactics like those we have seen of late. An open, democratic, and civil process will promote good ideas and good legislation and will eliminate corruption and influence peddling. In this new Congress and with this new rules package, we are standing up for our system of government and the needs of the people it serves and bringing back the government that they think they had, up until this last November. Democrats are going to return civility and common sense to this body, and I encourage everyone on both sides of the aisle to join us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I simply want to say there is no point going up to Rules. The Rules Committee has not been constituted yet. This is being brought under privileged communication.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a jurisdictional memorandum of understanding between the chairmen-designate from the Committee on Transportation and the Committee on Homeland Security.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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