H6144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

other sectors. However, the unfortunate reality 

is that our veterans experience unemployment 

rates well above the national average. 

Congresswoman CAPPS and Congressman 

KINZINGER have introduced common-sense 

legislation—H.R. 4124—to advance our 

shared goals of getting our veterans back to 

work and addressing areas of shortage in 

health professions. Congresswoman CAPPS

has also authored legislation—H.R. 3884, the 

Emergency Medic Transition Act of 2012—that 

similarly seeks to help armed services personnel transition from military to civilian jobs in 

a timely fashion. 

H.R. 4124 authorizes a demonstration grant 

program to states to support planning efforts 

to streamline their certification and licensure 

requirements for emergency medical technicians. As Congresswoman CAPPS has noted, I 

think there is a role for partnerships between 

public and private organizations within the 

States—such as area health education centers—in the implementation of this program. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4124, 

and I commend Congresswoman CAPPS and 

Congressman KINZINGER for their work on this 

legislation. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4124, the 

Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act of 2012, provides two important benefits. It addresses the shortages of emergency 

medical technicians (EMT) and it helps get our 

veterans back to work. 

Military medics receive some of the best 

medical and emergency training available 

while they serve our country. 

Yet, not all military medical training satisfies 

civilian EMT licensing and certification requirements. As a result, our returning veterans are 

unnecessarily prevented from working as an 

EMT when they re-enter civilian life. 

This bill will examine ways that states with 

a shortage of EMTs can streamline requirements so that military medics do not have to 

duplicate the education and training they received on the battlefield. Our vets will be put 

back to work, and critical workforce shortages 

in emergency care can be filled to meet public 

health needs. 

I proudly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the balance of my 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

PITTS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4124, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

RECALCITRANT CANCER 

RESEARCH ACT OF 2012 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 733) to amend the Public Health 

Service Act to provide for a Pancreatic 

Cancer Initiative, and for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 733 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Recalcitrant 

Cancer Research Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR RECALCITRANT CANCERS. 

Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public 

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 417G. SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR RECALCITRANT CANCERS. 

‘‘(a) DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For each recalcitrant 

cancer identified under subsection (b), the 

Director of the Institute shall develop (in accordance with subsection (c)) a scientific 

framework for the conduct or support of research on such cancer. 

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—The scientific framework 

with respect to a recalcitrant cancer shall 

include the following: 

‘‘(A) CURRENT STATUS.— 

‘‘(i) REVIEW OF LITERATURE.—A summary of 

findings from the current literature in the 

areas of— 

‘‘(I) the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of such cancer; 

‘‘(II) the fundamental biologic processes 

that regulate such cancer (including similarities and differences of such processes from 

the biological processes that regulate other 

cancers); and 

‘‘(III) the epidemiology of such cancer. 

‘‘(ii) SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES.—The identification of relevant emerging scientific areas 

and promising scientific advances in basic, 

translational, and clinical science relating 

to the areas described in subclauses (I) and 

(II) of clause (i). 

‘‘(iii) RESEARCHERS.—A description of the 

availability of qualified individuals to conduct scientific research in the areas described in clause (i). 

‘‘(iv) COORDINATED RESEARCH INITIATIVES.— 

The identification of the types of initiatives 

and partnerships for the coordination of intramural and extramural research of the Institute in the areas described in clause (i) 

with research of the relevant national research institutes, Federal agencies, and nonFederal public and private entities in such 

areas. 

‘‘(v) RESEARCH RESOURCES.—The identification of public and private resources, such as 

patient registries and tissue banks, that are 

available to facilitate research relating to 

each of the areas described in clause (i). 

‘‘(B) IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS.—The identification of research questions relating to basic, translational, and 

clinical science in the areas described in subclauses (I) and (II) of subparagraph (A)(i) 

that have not been adequately addressed 

with respect to such recalcitrant cancer. 

‘‘(C) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Recommendations for appropriate actions that should be 

taken to advance research in the areas described in subparagraph (A)(i) and to address 

the research questions identified in subparagraph (B), as well as for appropriate benchmarks to measure progress on achieving 

such actions, including the following: 

‘‘(i) RESEARCHERS.—Ensuring adequate 

availability of qualified individuals described in subparagraph (A)(iii). 

‘‘(ii) COORDINATED RESEARCH INITIATIVES.— 

Promoting and developing initiatives and 

partnerships described in subparagraph 

(A)(iv). 

‘‘(iii) RESEARCH RESOURCES.—Developing 

additional public and private resources described in subparagraph (A)(v) and strengthening existing resources. 

‘‘(3) TIMING.— 

‘‘(A) INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT

UPDATE.—For each recalcitrant cancer identified under subsection (b)(1), the Director of 

the Institute shall— 

‘‘(i) develop a scientific framework under 

this subsection not later than 18 months 

after the date of the enactment of this section; and 

‘‘(ii) review and update the scientific 

framework not later than 5 years after its 

initial development. 

‘‘(B) OTHER UPDATES.—The Director of the 

Institute may review and update each scientific framework developed under this subsection as necessary. 

‘‘(4) PUBLIC NOTICE.—With respect to each 

scientific framework developed under subsection (a), not later than 30 days after the 

date of completion of the framework, the Director of the Institute shall— 

‘‘(A) submit such framework to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Committee on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives, and the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and 

Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; 

and 

‘‘(B) make such framework publically 

available on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services. 

‘‘(b) IDENTIFICATION OF RECALCITRANT CANCER.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months 

after the date of the enactment of this section, the Director of the Institute shall identify two or more recalcitrant cancers that 

each— 

‘‘(A) have a 5-year relative survival rate of 

less than 20 percent; and 

‘‘(B) are estimated to cause the death of at 

least 30,000 individuals in the United States 

per year. 

‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL CANCERS.—The Director of 

the Institute may, at any time, identify 

other recalcitrant cancers for purposes of 

this section. In identifying a recalcitrant 

cancer pursuant to the previous sentence, 

the Director may consider additional 

metrics of progress (such as incidence and 

mortality rates) against such type of cancer. 

‘‘(c) WORKING GROUPS.—For each recalcitrant cancer identified under subsection 

(b), the Director of the Institute shall convene a working group comprised of representatives of appropriate Federal agencies 

and other non-Federal entities to provide expertise on, and assist in developing, a scientific framework under subsection (a). The 

Director of the Institute (or the Director’s 

designee) shall participate in the meetings of 

each such working group. 

‘‘(d) REPORTING.— 

‘‘(1) BIENNIAL REPORTS.—The Director of 

NIH shall ensure that each biennial report 

under section 403 includes information on actions undertaken to carry out each scientific 

framework developed under subsection (a) 

with respect to a recalcitrant cancer, including the following: 

‘‘(A) Information on research grants 

awarded by the National Institutes of Health 

for research relating to such cancer. 

‘‘(B) An assessment of the progress made in 

improving outcomes (including relative survival rates) for individuals diagnosed with 

such cancer. 

‘‘(C) An update on activities pertaining to 

such cancer under the authority of section 

413(b)(7). 

‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL ONE-TIME REPORT FOR CERTAIN FRAMEWORKS.—For each recalcitrant 

cancer identified under subsection (b)(1), the 

Director of the Institute shall, not later than 

6 years after the initial development of a scientific framework under subsection (a), submit a report to the Congress on the effectiveness of the framework (including the update 

required by subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)) in improving the prevention, detection, diagnosis, 

and treatment of such cancer. 

‘‘(e) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXCEPTION

FUNDING.—The Director of the Institute shall 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6145 

consider each relevant scientific framework 

developed under subsection (a) when making 

recommendations for exception funding for 

grant applications. 

‘‘(f) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term 

‘recalcitrant cancer’ means a cancer for 

which the five-year relative survival rate is 

below 50 percent.’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania (Mr. PITTS) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. ESHOO) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days within which to revise 

and extend their remarks and insert 

extraneous materials in the RECORD on 

H.R. 733. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support 

H.R. 733, the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012. 

This act will bring new hope to patients with cancers. 

It is never easy to lose someone to 

cancer, but it is especially difficult 

when you are not even given a fighting 

chance. 

Cancers with low survival rates and 

poor outcomes have baffled researchers 

for more than 40 years. These are recalcitrant cancers. 

While survival rates for many cancers have climbed from 50 percent to 67 

percent, there are still cancers that 

have yet to reach the 50 percent benchmark. 

While there are various types of cancers that fall under this definition, 

nearly half of the 577,190 cancer deaths 

expected in 2012 will be caused by eight 

deadly cancers, including pancreatic 

and ovarian cancer. 

b 2130 

This bill will direct the National 

Cancer Institute to establish a scientific framework for the study of recalcitrant cancers. Working groups will 

be appointed to prepare the framework 

that will include a review of current research and identification of key research questions and a summary of 

promising discoveries. The NIH would 

then be required to issue a report to 

Congress with recommendations on the 

effectiveness of the scientific framework model so that we can ensure that 

progress is being made and determine 

whether this type of model should be 

expanded to other types of diseases and 

conditions. 

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the legislation, and I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of my legislation, H.R. 733, 

which was originally named the Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education 

Act, which has now been renamed to be 

the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act 

of 2012. 

I first introduced this bill in the 

110th Congress in honor of a very dear 

friend, Ambassador Richard Sklar, who 

was a victim of this devastating disease. 

Pancreatic cancer is a disease from 

which very few people survive. It’s essentially a death sentence. It’s because 

of the families, their friends, neighbors, doctors, and coworkers who have 

advocated for much better research and 

treatments that we’ve made it to the 

finish line legislatively and that we are 

here this evening. 

Sadly, the outcomes for those with 

pancreatic cancer have remained relatively unchanged since the passage of 

the National Cancer Act nearly 40 

years ago. Only 6 percent of people diagnosed with the disease live longer 

than 5 years. Let me say that again. 

Only 6 percent of people diagnosed with 

pancreatic cancer live longer than 5 

years; 75 percent die within a year of 

diagnosis. Pancreatic cancer remains 

one of the most lethal types of cancers, 

even as survival rates for other cancers 

have increased. 

The Pancreatic Cancer Research and 

Education Act, which I introduced with 

my wonderful colleague, a real gentleman of the House, Representative 

LEONARD LANCE, directs the National 

Cancer Institute, the NCI, to develop a 

long-term strategic plan for addressing 

the disease, bringing together the finest minds in our country with the best 

expertise in this area. The plan will be 

used by the agency as a roadmap for 

navigating the best way forward in research for early detection, for new diagnostic tools, treatment therapies, 

and even cures. 

While pancreatic cancer is one of the 

most devastating of all recalcitrant 

cancers, or those with a high mortality 

rate and few treatments, it’s certainly 

not the only cancer that needs increased attention. That’s why I’ve 

worked closely with my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to expand our 

legislation to include all recalcitrant 

cancers so that we can make progress 

in other areas, too. 

I’m exceedingly proud to say that 

this bill enjoys the bipartisan cosponsorship of 293 Members of the United 

States House of Representatives. I 

want to thank Chairman UPTON, FRED

UPTON, whom I cajoled, whom I pestered, whom I pleaded with, whom I 

constantly kept after. He reminded me 

that I needed patience. I kept reminding him that I’ve been at it for 6 years. 

But he listened, and I appreciate that 

and I salute him for it. 

To the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. WAXMAN, to the staffs 

of the majority, both the Health Subcommittee, the full committee majority staff and the minority staff, I want 

to thank them as well, because without 

them we really cannot get our work 

done. 

I also want to say how proud I am 

and grateful I am for the efforts of the 

pancreatic cancer advocates who had 

the courage to share their painful stories with their Representatives and 

educate them about the importance of 

this legislation. I would also like to 

make mention of Senator SHELDON

WHITEHOUSE, who is the author in the 

other body and has been a marvelous 

advocate and carrier of this legislation. 

And last but not least, I’d like to pay 

tribute to Erin Katzelnick-Wise of my 

staff, who, for all of this time—over 

three Congresses—has worked diligently and vigorously and loyally on 

this bill. 

I look forward to seeing H.R. 733 

signed into law by the President so 

that we can begin the important work 

of finding a cure for pancreatic cancer, 

as well as the other cancers that take 

the lives of our fellow Americans every 

day. I think with the passage of this 

and the signature of it, the American 

people will say, at last, at last the Congress has acted on a bipartisan basis on 

something that is of utmost importance and urgency to the American 

people. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time 

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 

chair of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. UPTON). 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 733, the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012, will indeed 

take important steps to improve outcomes for cancer patients. 

For the many Americans who have 

been diagnosed with a hard-to-treat 

cancer, hope is not easy to come by. 

These patients have heard all about the 

advances in cancer treatments and 

cures but are left to wonder why there 

isn’t some help for them. Unfortunately, their cancers do not respond to 

traditional treatments and, as a result, 

have had very few improvements in 

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 

decades. 

Take, for example, pancreatic cancer. 

According to the NIH, it is estimated 

that 44,000 men and women will be diagnosed with this cancer this year, of 

which 35,000 will die. The 5-year survival rate is less than 6 percent, compared to other cancers with survival 

rates of over 90 percent. 

This bill will guide efforts at the National Cancer Institute in identifying 

the scientific framework that will outline those unanswered medical and scientific questions that will help to focus 

research efforts for those deadly cancers. Ensuring the availability of qualified researchers and important resources, such as patient registries, will 

also move the process forward. 

Tonight we work to provide patients 

and their families a little more hope. 

This bipartisan legislation is an important step as we continue to see breakthrough advances in cancer research, 

particularly for those cancers whose 

survival rates remain low and treatment options are limited. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

I want to thank Chairman WAXMAN

and his staff, as well as Chairman HARKIN and Ranking Member ENZI of the 

Senate committee, which passed the 

Senate version of this bill today in 

committee, for enabling us to be on the 

verge of really getting this legislation 

into law, which is one of the reasons 

why we bypassed the full committee. 

We were delighted to pass this legislation last week in subcommittee, and 

I singled out particularly my friends, 

ANNA ESHOO and LEONARD LANCE, for 

their stalwart work on moving this legislation. And I’ve got to tell you, the 

many times we met and chatted about 

this legislation, I was given an update 

on the number of bipartisan cosponsors 

from 233 to 240, and now 290-something 

that are there. It is, indeed, a bipartisan piece of legislation. 

One of the reasons why we bypassed 

the full committee this week in markup—which began, actually, this afternoon and we’ll finish tomorrow—is we 

wanted to get this bill to the floor 

right away so that we don’t even have 

to wait for a lame duck session to get 

it signed into law. So I would hope that 

my Senate colleagues move this quickly. 

But I just really want to thank my 

friends, ANNA ESHOO and LEONARD

LANCE, for their great work. The staff 

that put this together—I’ll tell you, in 

sitting down with the NIH folks 2 

weeks ago, we’ve really expanded. 

We’ve broadened this to include more 

than just pancreatic, how this started. 

b 2140 

We have the stakeholders now on 

board that are excited about this legislation and what it will hold. The private sector out there—and, man, we’ve 

sure heard from them over the last 

year or so—but I know, too, that they 

are very happy with the passage of this 

tonight. It’s a dream that’s come true 

thanks to you. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would 

just like to add to the comments that 

I made earlier that this is really highly 

unusual that a bill would enjoy such 

high co-sponsorship. 

So, to the advocates that may be 

tuned in tonight, I, again, want to pay 

homage to them for their advocacy, for 

their tenacity, for their turning their 

real pain and loss into something that 

is worthy of those that were lost. Almost 1,000 bills were referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee during 

this, the 112th Congress. There was no 

other bill that enjoyed the high number, 293 bipartisan cosponsors. 

This Congress has been really torn a 

part by so much disagreement, a high 

amount of nonpartisanship, people all 

over the country really scratching 

their heads and saying, can anyone 

ever come together in Congress to get 

something done for the American people. And while I wish there were so 

much more, I think that this stands 

tall and is an eloquent statement about 

my colleagues that signed on to this as 

cosponsors. 

And I thank, again, the leadership on 

both sides of the aisle, the staff that is 

so wonderfully responsible for the 

beautiful work that’s done and, again, 

close my comments by paying tribute 

to the Republican leader on this legislation, Representative LEONARD LANCE, 

who is a genuine gentleman, an outstanding legislator, a good friend, and 

a man of real integrity. 

I say bravo to all of the advocates. 

God bless you all. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time 

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 

gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. 

LANCE), a member of the Health Subcommittee. 

Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of this legislation that I have had the honor of cosponsoring with my friend and colleague, Congresswoman ANNA ESHOO of 

California. The legislation improves 

the prevention, the diagnosis, and the 

treatment of cancers with high mortality rates, including pancreatic cancer. 

Since President Nixon declared the 

war on cancer 40 years ago, the overall 

5-year survival rate for all a cancers 

has climbed from approximately 50 percent to 67 percent. There are, however, 

cancers such as pancreatic cancer that 

still have high mortality rates and 

have not seen substantial progress in 

diagnoses or treatment of the disease. 

These so-called ‘‘recalcitrant cancers’’ 

are among the deadliest diseases and 

are the very types of cancers that this 

bill seeks to address. 

This legislation will direct the National Cancer Institute to establish a 

scientific framework that will guide research efforts on recalcitrant cancers 

by identifying unanswered medical and 

scientific questions. This framework 

seeks to bring together the brightest 

minds from Federal health agencies, 

from academia, and from private research fields with the hope of yielding 

new treatments and cures for recalcitrant cancers. 

I thank Chairman PITTS and Ranking 

Member PALLONE of the Health Subcommittee for their steadfast support 

of the bill; and I thank the chairman of 

the full committee, Mr. UPTON, and the 

ranking member, Mr. WAXMAN, for 

their essential help. 

At a time when so many Americans 

are concerned about the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, this legislation 

is an example where members of the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee work together, as we so often 

do, on critical health care issues. This 

legislation will reach the President’s 

desk. This is the way Congress should 

work. 

I give special recognition to Congresswoman ESHOO for her tireless efforts, not only in support of this legislation, her legislation, but for her advocacy throughout her public life in 

support of cancer research and education. 

I also thank Senator WHITEHOUSE for 

his work on this issue. And I thank Jeff 

Last, of my staff, for all that he has 

done on this important legislation. 

Also, Mr. Speaker, I thank Lisa 

Swayze for her advocacy in support of 

the pancreatic cancer issue, advocacy 

in memory of her husband, the great 

actor and dancer, Patrick Swayze. 

On a personal note, when my twin 

brother, Jim, and I were 12 years old, 

we lost our mother to cancer after a 

valiant 3-year battle. I dedicate whatever modest work I have done on this 

issue in her memory. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to commend the advocacy 

of Mr. LANCE and Ms. ESHOO, the leadership, Mr. UPTON, the ranking member 

of the full committee and the subcommittee, and thank the staffs of 

both the subcommittee and the full 

committee for their tireless work in 

putting together this bipartisan compromise, an excellent bill. And I urge 

support from the Members for H.R. 733, 

the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act 

of 2012. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an 

example of Congress functioning at its best. 

As introduced, Congresswoman ESHOO and 

Congressman LANCE’s legislation addresses a 

policy goal that resonates with many of us— 

making progress in our fight against pancreatic cancer. In fact, nearly 300 Members of 

the House—Democrats and Republicans 

alike—are co-sponsors of this legislation. 

Through the Committee process, Members 

and staff worked on a bipartisan basis to respond to input from the National Institutes of 

Health and National Cancer Institute (NCI), 

pancreatic cancer advocates, and cancer researchers. I believe the end result—the bill before us today—represents a fair and balanced 

approach. 

H.R. 733 now focuses on a broader category of cancers, the so-called recalcitrant or 

deadliest cancers. The legislation directs the 

NCI to develop scientific frameworks to guide 

research efforts on recalcitrant cancers—defined as those cancers with 5-year relative 

survival rates below 50 percent. The bill requires the Director of the NCI to complete 

frameworks for at least 2 recalcitrant cancers 

that meet additional criteria set forth in the 

bill—having a 5-year survival rate of less than 

20 percent and causing at least 30,000 estimated deaths—within 18 months of enactment. It is my expectation that NCI will begin 

first with pancreatic and lung cancer. But in 

doing so, I also expect NCI to consider applying the scientific framework model to other recalcitrant cancers. 

Importantly, the bill ensures there will be an 

opportunity for outside experts to offer their 

perspective as the Director of NCI works to 

complete each scientific framework. H.R. 733 

also calls on NCI to submit each completed 

framework to Congress and post it on the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

website. 

No doubt, many Members like myself have 

met with constituents and heard the heartwrenching stories of those families who have 

been impacted by pancreatic cancer. The unfortunate reality is that we rarely hear from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6147 

survivors of pancreatic cancer themselves 

since they are so few. In California alone, 

nearly 4,000 people will lose their lives to pancreatic cancer this year. An additional 12,000 

Californians will die from lung cancer. Their 

families—and many others—have asked for 

our support in improving the diagnosis and 

treatment of pancreatic, lung, and other recalcitrant cancers. 

There’s no disputing that great progress has 

been made in our fight against cancer over 

the past 40 years. Consider for example the 

improvement we’ve seen in the overall fiveyear relative survival rate for all cancers, and 

the important discoveries that NCI has made 

through its Cancer Genome Atlas program in 

understanding what makes one cancer different from another. Nonetheless, there are 

certain cancers where we haven’t seen as 

many gains. That’s precisely why I support the 

approach taken in H.R. 733. 

I’m very proud of the work of Chairman 

UPTON, Chairman PITTS, Ranking Member 

PALLONE, Congresswoman ESHOO, and Congressman LANCE—as well as all of our staff— 

on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support 

passage of this bill. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I proudly cast a 

‘‘yea’’ vote in support of H.R. 733, the Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act, 

with the memory of Elmer Chenault in mind. 

This important legislation will address the high 

mortality rate associated with Pancreatic Cancer. Mr. Chenault, my father-in-law, was a 

senior management officer and federal compliance official of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Army veteran of the Korean War and 

a devoted family man. Elmer spent his working career in the scientific and environmental 

fields and was one of the first officials of the 

EPA, joining it shortly after it was founded in 

1970 under President Richard M. Nixon. He 

grew up in Wyoming, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati. Joining the EPA in the early ’70s, 

Elmer became a tireless advocate for environmental justice for communities of color and the 

economically disadvantaged. 

His passing was a trying time for my family, 

an experience too many know too well when 

confronting this terrible disease, and his loss 

continues to be felt by many in Philadelphia. 

I thank my colleague from California for her 

stalwart support for this legislation and look 

forward to a time when no family must face 

the scourge of Pancreatic Cancer. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

PITTS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 733, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

The title was amended so as to read: 

‘‘A bill to provide for scientific frameworks with respect to recalcitrant cancers.’’. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

MOURNING THE LOSS OF SHERIFF 

LARRY DEVER 

(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, Arizonans 

were greeted this morning with the unwelcome news that Cochise County 

Sheriff, Larry Dever, passed away last 

night in an automobile accident. The 

great State of Arizona is in a state of 

mourning. 

Respected throughout the State as a 

leader and a lawman, Sheriff Dever was 

also recognized nationally as an authority on immigration and border 

issues. Every Senator, Congressman, 

Governor, and local official who wanted to know what was really happening 

in southern Arizona sought Sheriff 

Dever’s counsel. No meetings or briefings, Powerpoint presentations, flip 

charts, or easels could compare to a 

couple of hours in the passenger seat of 

his pickup truck, driving bumpy roads, 

one-on-one with the sheriff. 

To us, Sheriff Dever was the consummate lawman: tough, fair-minded, 

straight shooting, no nonsense. To his 

wife, Nancy, he was a devoted husband. 

To his six sons, he was a caring father. 

To his 11 grandchildren, he was a proud 

and doting grandfather. 

To those of us who call Arizona 

home, we are grateful for the past 60 

years that Sheriff Dever has called Arizona home as well. 

f 

(2150) 

STOP THE WAR ON COAL 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from 

West Virginia (Mrs. CAPITO) is recognized until 10 p.m. as the designee of 

the majority leader. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

We have 10 minutes here, and I am 

very proud to be here tonight to talk 

about a bill that is on the floor on Friday, and that is the Stop the War on 

Coal Act of 2012. I hail from the great 

State of West Virginia, one of the largest coal-producing States in this Nation. Quite frankly, I am here for three 

reasons. 

The first reason is that I am extremely concerned about the job loss 

and the economic devastation that this 

war on coal is having on our State of 

West Virginia. We had really sad news 

just yesterday. Alpha Coal announced 

that 1,200 coal mining jobs in the region were going to be cut. Now, that 

sounds like a lot of jobs, but then when 

you think about it, that’s 1,200 families, and that’s 1,200 men and women 

who will come home tonight and who 

came home last night. So we say we’re 

going to have to do something. 

And why is it? We don’t have enough 

time to get into all of the details, but 

I do think it is part and parcel of the 

regulatory environment of this administration, that it’s the philosophy of 

this administration that coal is not 

good for the country, and it’s a lack of 

education, really, on the acknowledgment of the base load energy that coal 

brings to this Nation. 

I am here to stand up for the families 

and businesses that are going to see a 

rise in their electric bills. I am also 

here for the reliability of the electric 

grid to make sure that we have affordable energy. 

I would like to bring my friend from 

Pennsylvania in. We’ve been waiting a 

while. The Stop the War on Coal Act is 

coming up on Friday, which the President’s energy plan is destroying, if you 

can even call it a plan. I mean, we’re 

from an all-of-the-above plan. We’ve 

worked together on this, Mr. MURPHY

and I. We’ve already lost over 2,000 

jobs, and 55 units are going to retire 

across America, in large part, due to 

EPA rules and regulations. How many 

jobs is that? These Boiler MACT rules, 

these Utility MACT rules, coal ash 

rules are all job killers. 

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since we’re 

on limited time, and ask him to give 

his perspectives on what we know is a 

war on coal. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I 

thank the gentlelady from West Virginia. Thank you also for your tireless 

advocacy for coal as we are here fighting the war on coal. 

It’s interesting. I remember when I 

was attending college at Wheeling Jesuit University. Oftentimes, for charitable activities, we’d go into the mountains of Appalachia and help families 

where coal mines had shut down because they were played out, and we’d 

seen the incredible poverty there. We 

also know that, over the last century, 

miners toiled for years in those coal 

patch towns and tried to make things 

safer, and they accomplished that. 

They worked for better wages, and 

they accomplished that. Now they’re 

fighting for their very existence and 

their jobs and livelihoods. 

To add to what you’re saying about 

the jobs here, this is not just coal miners. It’s the manufacturers who make 

the longwall equipment—the continuous miners, the rails, the wire, the 

ventilators, the elevators, the safety 

equipment. They are fighting for their 

jobs. It’s the railroads, the trucks, the 

barges, the workers who make the 

rails, the hopper cars, the barges, the 

trucks who are there, fighting for their 

jobs. 

Where will they go? Really, this is 

not just an attack on some of the 

power plants. We may lose 175 or so initially. The goal is to shut down 400 

power plants altogether. What will 

happen then? 

Now, this keeps the President’s 

pledge that, if you want to use coal, it 

will bankrupt you, but it’s also going 

to bankrupt these families when they 

can’t pay their bills when their electric 

rates go up. They’re already paying 

$3,000 more per year for their gasoline 

for their cars. Interior Secretary Ken 

Salazar told the Democratic National 

Convention: 

Under President Obama’s leadership, the 

U.S. moved forward with an all-of-the-above 

energy strategy—oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE