Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, let me say to my colleagues, voting for this rule gives the President not only what he has asked for the funding of the troops, but allows the people in the House who oppose that to have an opportunity to vote ``no.'' We also note, in response to Mr. Reichert, that it does have an orderly withdrawal of troops beginning in December 2009, ending in 18 months. This is a well-crafted piece of legislation of which I am extremely proud. I urge everyone to vote for the bill and rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin 2 additional minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1197.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1197 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1197 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment with three House amendments. The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. The rule also provides that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the Congressional Record dated May 15, 2008, such material as he may deem explanatory of the motion. Madam Speaker, with a deep appreciation for the importance of the legislation before us today, the Rules Committee has reported out a rule that allows for a full, thorough debate on three amendments critical to the future of our Nation. This process will give each Member ample opportunity to vote their conscience on whether to fund the war or not, place conditions on our Iraq policy or not, or choose to support veterans over millionaires. The legislation we are about to take up was forged with the idea of consensus. It meets the spending requirements made by President Bush, including the $5.8 billion that he asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans. In addition, it does not include a single earmark, except those explicitly requested by Mr. Bush's administration. On the other hand, the legislation is not a blank check because it is important to remember why we are really here today. This is the sixth year of the war in Iraq. More than 4,000 United States service men and women, 28 from my district alone, are dead. Tens of thousands have been wounded and physically disabled, and far too many suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues. What's more, the civilian death total is devastating. Millions, not thousands, of Iraqi men, women and children are dead. Millions more have been forced into camps or other countries that will accept them. At a time of economic emergency, when the American family is under siege, the war continues to be waged at a staggering cost to the American taxpayer and at the expense of our economic security. A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the Bush administration's practice of paying off supposedly independent military analysts to shade the truth about what was really happening in Iraq. This administration was so concerned that Americans would find out the truth that they paid former U.S. military personnel to read from prescreened, whitewashed Pentagon talking points to hide from the American people what was happening in their name. This may be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history, and the American people overwhelmingly are calling for it to end. They have seen that this insurgency is far from nearing the end. They were told, ``Trust us. The Iraqi war revenues will pay for reconstruction.'' Yet the American people are feeling the pinch as their hard-earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign nation while their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart. They were told, ``Trust us. We will make sure your sons and daughters have the equipment they need.'' Yet we have all seen the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill-equipped armored vehicles. And we have all heard the tales of worried mothers scraping together the family savings to purchase adequate body armor for their children. They were told, ``Trust us. We will ensure that our fighting men and women will be taken care of when they return home.'' Yet we all remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, the recent reports of appalling living conditions for troops stationed in the barracks at Fort Worth, Texas. Under such circumstances, it would be an abdication of our duty to perpetuate a clearly unacceptable status quo. For that reason, the legislation we take up today represents a break from the past and a renewed chance of changing a stale, stagnant situation. It does, indeed, provide immediate funding for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are currently in the field. However, while the needs of our troops will always be at the forefront of our national priorities, funding for this war must not come in the form of a blank check. This funding only comes with conditions that will begin the process for ending this war. The supplemental requires that troops begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing a full withdrawal in 18 months. We do this not because we concede 1 inch to those who would do our Nation harm or because we lack the will to fight for our national security, we do this because basic respect for our military demands it. No longer will they be asked to fight an open-ended conflict whose finish line keeps moving. And in keeping with this respect for our troops, the legislation mandates that soldiers must be properly rested and equipped to meet the administration's own standards for combat readiness before redeployment. Furthermore, we will honor the parents who continue to serve our Nation by finally providing full funding for the military day care centers. This legislation also keeps our promises to our veterans. Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need to resume their lives upon their return home. The bill before us dramatically expands the education benefits that veterans of the United States military will receive under the new GI Bill. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit and much more, but every dollar we spend on education today will come back to bolster our economy tomorrow. It is also an investment. And I would add that this provision is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest, who saw their tax rates drop 19.6 percent in 2004, they have saved around $126,000 since that time, we are asking them please to give us $500 to help fund the GI Bill of Rights. At no time ever before in the history of this country have we been burdened with massive tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war. Obviously this has been a new idea of this administration. These actions of fiscal incompetence by the Bush administration left this country's economy struggling, and American families are paying the price. And no families are paying it more than the families of the men and women who are fighting this war. No sacrifice has been asked from any of the rest of us. Rising levels of sustained joblessness require us to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who understandably cannot find a job. This bill does just that. Additionally, up until this point, the American people have been unfairly asked to shoulder the full weight of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. The underlying legislation requires that U.S. reconstruction aid be matched dollar for dollar by the Iraqi Government, removing some of the pressure from families already struggling to make ends meet. Furthermore, it prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people with a costly occupation long after the Army is gone. Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight a conflict and a war far away from home, and we owe them not only our support and our deep thanks, and not only with words, but with the deeds that we commit to in this Congress. This bill is about who we are as a society and the values that we hold. I am proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I am pleased to move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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. 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.

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. 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 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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.