Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2018. H.R. 2278 is bipartisan legislation to address the safe disposal of uranium mill tailings, a sandy byproduct of the uranium milling process. In Grand Junction, Colorado, uranium mill tailings were offered to the community as fill material before the health risks of the radioactive material were fully understood. The tailings were subsequently used in the construction of local homes, roads, sidewalks, parks, and schools. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act provided for the cleanup of those tailings in 1978 and created 19 disposal cells for the radioactive waste. The last of the cells available to accept this material for disposal, the Cheney cell in Grand Junction, Colorado, is set to close in September 2023. This bill extends the cell's closure date to September 2030 or until the cell is filled, whichever day comes first. Mr. Speaker, Congress has already extended the closure date of the disposal cell several times. I support this legislation to keep the site operational, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I congratulate Prime Minister Pashinyan and the people of the Republic of Armenia on 27 years of independence from the Soviet Union. Since this day 27 years ago, the Armenian people have lived up to their pledge to create a free and independent nation, built on strong democratic principles and a market economy. Earlier this year, Armenia saw incredible and unprecedented change in its government as a result of the Velvet Revolution. The peaceful transition of power after the revolution is a clear indication of the will of the Armenian people, strongly demonstrating a commitment to a fairer and more democratic state. Since my first visit in 1997, I continue to be struck by the incredible progress Armenia has made towards bolstering its government transparency, strengthening its democratic institutions, and empowering its civil society. I believe it is critical for the United States to continue to deepen its ties with our regional partner at every level of government to ensure this transformation continues. The Republic of Armenia has also consistently championed the right to self-determination of its neighbors in the Republic of Artsakh. This is a right that Artsakh continues to fight for in its steadfast pursuit of regional security and stability despite a tenuous cease fire. The United States must continue to support a negotiated end to hostilities with Azerbaijan along the lines of the Royce-Engel peace proposals, and take further action to ensure that all parties of the conflict are included. I join with the Armenian people and the Armenian-American community in celebrating 27 years of independence. I send my best wishes on this important day and pledge my continued commitment to a strong United States-Armenia partnership.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, Mrs. Napolitano, and all the leadership on both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for putting this bill together. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the Energy and Commerce jurisdiction, which is initially the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our Nation's public drinking water system serves more than 300 million people, but aging and failing infrastructure threatens access to safe drinking water in communities large and small. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that our water systems will require $472 billion in infrastructure repairs over the next 20 years, but investment simply has not kept pace with the need. This bill reauthorizes the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund for the first time in 20 years and provides significant new funding to State and local governments in dire need. The bill nearly doubles the authorized funding from $1 billion to almost $2 billion in 2021 and increases funding for public water system supervision grants to States. Important provisions in the bill ensure that this money gets to the communities that need it most by raising the cap on special assistance to disadvantaged communities under the State Revolving Fund and setting a floor for such assistance to guarantee help for those communities. I want to thank Representative Tonko, the ranking member of our House Energy Subcommittee on Environment, who led the effort to reauthorize and improve the State Revolving Fund for many years. Many of the provisions in this bill were incorporated from AQUA Act, which he authored. The bill also contains a provision first introduced by myself and Representative Rush establishing a grant program for replacing leaded drinking water fountains in schools and requiring, for the first time, a national inventory of lead service lines and the cost to replace them. The bill contains Representative Dingell's provision to make drinking water quality reports to consumers more frequent, comprehensive, and understandable. Significantly, the bill incorporates Representative Peters' provision to assist systems with resiliency to extreme weather, and it establishes new requirements to assess and address vulnerabilities to those threats. It also provides $100 million for grants to extend access to safe drinking water into areas impacted by natural disasters, responding to concerns raised by Representative Green. Additionally, the bill contains language championed by Representative McNerney authorizing a water sense program to encourage consumer product water efficiency, and it authorizes Buy America requirements for iron and steel products for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, this bill won't solve all our drinking water challenges, but it makes important improvements and delivers real benefits. I am also pleased that this final bipartisan bill includes important energy provisions that I pushed, to include among them provisions authored by Representatives Kennedy, DeGette, and Peters. All in all, the drinking water and energy titles of this bill are critical, significant steps forward that will benefit America's families, industry, and the environment. Mr. Speaker, America's Water Infrastructure Act is a victory for all of us, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is unnecessary because the Department of Energy is aggressively approving liquefied natural gas exports. DOE currently conducts a public interest review of all applications to export LNG to a country without a free trade agreement with the United States, and this process is working just fine. To date, DOE has granted final approval for 29 applications to export LNG. Over the past few years, the U.S. has emerged as one of the largest exporters in the world. There is no backlog of applications or delay at DOE to speak of, and the Trump administration has taken every opportunity to promote U.S. natural gas abroad. In July, the Department of Energy finalized a rule to automatically approve applications to export less than 0.14 billion cubic feet per day of LNG. It declares in this rule that all small-scale exports are always in the public interest, removes longstanding consumer protections of the Natural Gas Act, prevents the public from having the opportunity to know about or provide input on export proposals, and violates the public hearing requirements of the Natural Gas Act. Rather than stand up for American consumers and manufacturers who benefit from low natural gas prices, the Trump administration is boosting the profits of oil and gas special interests by allowing them to export LNG without any regard for domestic impacts. This bill is intended to codify DOE's small-scale LNG rule, but proponents have not justified the need for swift congressional action on a rule that was just finalized. There are drawbacks to codifying the rule with such a prescriptive volume requirement. For example, should the circumstances arise where exporting this amount of LNG is no longer in the public interest, Congress would then have to enact a new law to make any necessary changes. In addition, Madam Chair, an unrestricted export policy could lead to even higher levels of LNG exports, which could have significant impacts on domestic natural gas prices and adversely affect American consumers and manufacturers. Unfettered exports would also exacerbate climate change by encouraging more fossil fuel extraction and displacing carbon-free sources of power. High methane leak rates and increased demand for LNG exports would likely offset any climate benefits associated with natural gas use. For Congress and the Trump administration to prioritize such a policy at a time when methane pollution from U.S. oil and gas operation is expected to warm the planet as much as coal is, in my opinion, completely reckless. Madam Chair, beyond that, the use of floor time on such an unnecessary bill is just the latest example of our current reality. Republicans are running a government of, by, and for the corporate interests, not a government for the people. This bill will not create a single new job. Madam Chair, the House has just 16 legislative days remaining before the election and just 8 legislative days before the end of the fiscal year. The farm bill expires this month. So does authorization for FAA and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We also need to fund the government to prevent another Trump shutdown. We should be focusing our limited time on legislation that would fix our crumbling infrastructure, create jobs that pay a livable wage, and move America toward a smarter, greener energy future. We need a practical balance and sustainable energy policy. What we do not need are bills like this that target problems that don't exist. We don't need to be throwing more bones to the fossil fuel industry. I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I understand the previous speaker, my colleague from Arizona's interests in helping our friends and neighbors in the Caribbean, but nothing in this bill or the rule requires small-scale shipments to go to the Caribbean area. And, in fact, Puerto Rico is the largest importer of LNG in the region, and the problems associated with getting them natural gas are due to Jones Act restrictions, not DOE approval of export applications. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, LNG exports are clearly a priority for this administration, and I see no indication that this trajectory is changing, so we don't need this bill to enshrine the prescriptive and problematic small-scale LNG rule into law. Passing this bill will not create new jobs or approve any small-scale LNG applications. It is solely a political win for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of American consumers and manufacturers. Those who are against unrestricted export of natural gas argue that cheap, domestic natural gas prices are providing a big boost and competitive advantage to U.S. manufacturing. They are worried that exporting large volumes of LNG will drive up domestic natural gas prices, harming American manufacturers and consumers. Madam Chair, I believe it is reasonable to question the wisdom of exporting too much of our natural gas and to consider whether such an approach will hurt our domestic manufacturing base, and giving the fossil fuel industry a green light to extract and export unlimited amounts of natural gas will only lead to greater methane leaks and the displacement of carbon-free energy sources. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, one of my biggest concerns with this bill, and DOE's Small-Scale LNG rule, is the removal of public hearing requirements for LNG export applications. This is drastic change in the approval process, and my amendment seeks to restore the ability for public input through a public hearing. Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act requires DOE to grant an application to export natural gas to a non-Free Trade Agreement country, unless it finds that the proposed export is not consistent with the public interest. And typically, notices of non-FTA applications are posted in the Federal Register for public comment, which ultimately informs DOE's evaluation of an application's consistence with the public interest. DOE evaluates a range of factors when performing a public interest review, including economic impacts, international considerations, U.S. energy security, and environmental considerations. And these are important considerations that are unique to each export application, and the public plays a key role in DOE's decisionmaking process. But DOE recently turned this process on its head for small-scale exports. Hidden in its small-scale LNG proposed rule, DOE proclaimed that: ``This proposed rule, and the 45-day comment period for this proposed rule, would constitute the notice and opportunity for hearing on all prospective small-scale natural gas export applications.'' What that means, Madam Chair, is that all qualifying small-scale export applications would be approved without any public notice or comment, or need for a unique public interest determination, in perpetuity. I think that is pretty outrageous, and I would argue it violates the public hearing requirements of the Natural Gas Act. DOE failed to justify the sweeping change to the existing approval process. Congress should avoid the same mistake. Congress should not be in the business of limiting the participation of the American public in such a debate, but that is exactly what H.R. 4606 does. By codifying the DOE rule, this legislation reduces the ability of communities directly impacted by these projects to give meaningful input during the review process. Exporting America's resources to foreign nations while creating domestic environmental and public health impacts is not in the public interest, nor is cutting the public out of the process by which we express our interest. Congress should not create laws to export our natural resources wealth at the expense of our environment and our manufacturers while simultaneously limiting the rights of Americans to comment on natural gas export projects in their communities. My amendment is a commonsense proposal to fix this problem in the underlying bill. It is good government. It is in the public interest that consumers and communities have the ability to provide input on export applications, no matter how small. Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I just wanted to read some parts of a letter from the Industrial Energy Consumers of America in support of the amendment. Let me just say to my colleagues on the other side, the purpose of the amendment is not delay, but public input for the public interest. The Industrial Energy Consumers write: ``In behalf of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, IECA, we support your amendment to provide consumers of natural gas an `opportunity for hearing and public input' for small-scale LNG export applications, in advance of final approval by the U.S. Department of Energy. It is good government and in the public interest that consumers have the ability to provide input. ``Every study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy on the potential economic impacts of LNG exports concludes that exports of LNG increase the price of natural gas and electricity. Although we do not anticipate this being a significant problem in the short term, public policy must consider longer term potential impacts. It is for this reason that it is wise to provide for public input. Consumers of natural gas deserve that option. ``The manufacturing sector consumes about 25 percent of all U.S. natural gas and demand is increasing annually. IECA members are mostly energy intensive trade exposed, EITE, companies, which means that relatively small changes to the price of natural gas and electricity can have relatively large impacts to competitiveness and jobs. For the majority of our applications, there is no substitute for natural gas.'' And then it is signed by the president, Paul Cicio. Again, Madam Chair, I would urge support of my amendment. There is nothing wrong with public input. It is part of the democratic process. I do think we need to be concerned about the increased price of natural gas from LNG exports and what it might mean not only for consumers, but for manufacturing. If manufacturing is decreased because of the increase, then that means fewer jobs for Americans. So I appreciate the support from the Industrial Energy Consumers. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize David Portman for his immeasurable contributions to the community and to congratulate him as he receives the Distinguished Leadership Award at Hollywood Golf Club's 2018 Benefit for the Jewish Federation in the Heart of New Jersey. Mr. Portman's philanthropy and professional accomplishments are truly deserving of this body's recognition. President of Triad Group, a development, construction and management company, Mr. Portman is an accomplished and respected businessman in New Jersey. For more than 35 years, Triad Group has completed numerous projects, including medical facilities, legal offices, and residential properties. In addition to his professional work, Mr. Portman is an active member and leader in the Jewish community. He currently serves on the Leaders Council for the Jewish Federation in the Heart of New Jersey and has previously served as President of the Jewish Federation of Monmouth County, as Vice President of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and as Regional Chair of Operation Renewal, among others. Combining his expertise as a developer with his compassionate support of the Jewish community, Mr. Portman has committed years to the construction of The Jewish Home for Rehabilitation and Nursing. This new facility will fulfill Mr. Portman's mission to not only provide necessary medical care to patients, but to also maintain their connection to the Jewish faith and customs. Mr. Portman's vision and respect for the comfort of these patients and their families is truly admirable. Once again, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in honoring David Portman for his dedicated leadership and support of the Jewish community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Colonel Jeff Cantor of Marlboro, New Jersey on his retirement from the United States Army. Colonel Cantor has provided 32 years of steadfast leadership and selfless service in defense of the United States of America, and has been instrumental in spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom to oppressed people all over the world. His service is truly deserving of this body's recognition. Colonel Cantor has commanded U.S. Army personnel at multiple levels in combat and in peacetime and has demonstrated personal sacrifice while deployed three times to hostile environments. He has had an illustrious career in the U.S. Army and has contributed to building stability in areas around the world with complex environments, and has successfully brought together warring factions so that they may enjoy peace in their lifetime and for future generations. Colonel Cantor served as the European Command Civil Affairs Plans Team Chief and was responsible for working with former war-torn nations and building stability in the Balkans. He served as the director on various Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises, and served as the director for Immediate Response 16, where he was responsible for 1,900 soldiers from ten different countries conducting full spectrum operations and training in Slovenia and Croatia, in which the Prime Minister of Slovenia personally congratulated Colonel Cantor for his efforts during the exercise. Colonel Cantor deployed to Iraq as a company commander and was among the first Civil Affairs Companies to enter the country during the 2003 invasion. During that deployment, he developed and significantly influenced the first post-Saddam Hussein Kirkuk provincial government to provide stability among 1.2 million ethnically diverse people and was responsible for the construction of over 285 schools, the creation of a new city police force and opened the first police academy in Iraq. Colonel Cantor has helped people in dozens of countries solve complex programs and build capacity to increase stability, as he spent time in sub-Saharan Africa working with tribal leaders in Cameroon to provide health care to their people, and coordinated and successfully employed physicians and dentists in a highly impoverished area to expand health care to the neediest of people and provided expertise in lasting care, and helped build refugee camps for Tutsi refugees fleeing for their lives from neighboring countries. Colonel Cantor supported the 82nd Airborne Division and became the Parwan Provincial Reconstruction Team Commander responsible for 245 troops, including operational control of a Kentucky National Guard Agriculture team. He was responsible for planning, preparing and executing multiple projects including the conversion of poppy crops to sustainable high labor crops and improving the effectiveness of provincial law enforcement functions. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Colonel Jeff Cantor on his military retirement and thanking him for his honorable service. This nation owes a debt of gratitude to Colonel Cantor for making the world a safer place and instilling the ideas of democracy in hostile environments around the world.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. This bill makes incremental changes to support those affected by the opioid crisis, but it is far from perfect. H.R. 6 does not adequately deal with the magnitude of the crisis that this country is facing, and there are provisions that I did not support at the subcommittee or full committee markup, including provisions that most Democrats voted against. Nonetheless, I am pleased that Democrats were able to secure positive provisions in the final package that we are considering today. Most notably, H.R. 6 includes provisions from a bill introduced by Representative Tonko and Representative Lujan that would extend access to evidence-based, medication-assisted treatment. Specifically, this section of the bill will allow advanced practice registered nurses, including midwives, to treat patients with buprenorphine for opiate use disorder for 5 years. The bill will also allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to treat patients with buprenorphine permanently, and allow qualified providers to treat up to 100 patients instead of 30 patients in their first year. This is a critical step forward in the expansion of treatment, one of the major challenges that we continue to face in the fight against this epidemic. Mr. Chair, I commend Representative Tonko and Representative Lujan for their ongoing leadership in this area. This bill also expands coverage through Medicare by adding methadone clinics to the Medicare program. Right now, methadone clinics are not Medicare providers. Seniors who want to get treatment from methadone clinics have to pay out of pocket. Adding methadone clinics will address an important coverage gap in the Medicare program and meaningfully expand access to treatment for opiate use disorders. The bill also improves coverage for vulnerable populations in Medicaid, ensures coverage for former foster youth up to the age of 26 nationwide, and supports State efforts to ensure continuity of coverage for people with substance use disorders as they leave incarceration. The bill will also provide funding to Medicaid substance use disorder health homes, give States money to expand the treatment capacity of Medicaid providers, and raise reimbursement rates. It also mandates coverage of Medicaid for all forms of medication-assisted treatment for 5 years. The legislation also mandates comprehensive substance use disorder benefits in the Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as CHIP. I am also pleased that H.R. 3528, the Every Prescription Conveyed Securely Act, authored by Representative Clark of Massachusetts, is included in the bill. E-prescribing is an important tool that will reduce opiate diversion and prescription fraud. Further, the bill gives the Secretary of HHS the authority to expand the use of telehealth services in Medicare for substance use disorder treatment to help reach more people across the country. These were all important Democratic provisions and priorities that we worked hard to have included in the final package. I think these will all make a real difference in our fight against the opioid epidemic. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I still have concerns with some of the provisions included in this final negotiated bill and the process by which we arrived here. For instance, there are two Medicare bills that I opposed through the committee process that I am concerned may not have a meaningful impact on the opioid crisis. H.R. 5804 would increase reimbursement for certain interventional pain injections in the ambulatory surgery setting under Medicare. I have seen no evidence that increasing reimbursement for these injections would have a meaningful impact on opioid prescribing. While it is important that Congress finds ways to promote nonopioid therapies that will reduce opioid prescribing, this legislation endorses and incentivizes interventions that may not be effective for a majority of the patients receiving them. I also have some concerns about H.R. 5809, which would extend a temporary pass-through payment for nonopioid analgesics for postsurgical pain management from 3 to 5 years in Medicare. I do question if this bill will have a meaningful impact on the opioid crisis. I am also disappointed that partisan legislation that would direct the FDA to issue guidance on how the agency will apply the criteria for accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation to nonaddictive pain and addiction treatment was included in this package. This legislation would set the precedent of having the FDA opine on how expedited programs may apply differently for therapeutic areas. It requires the agency to host a public meeting to discuss this and other topics, but provides no resources for the agency to complete these tasks. This is not legislation that FDA asked for or highlighted as a priority in fighting the opioid crisis. While they may now be comfortable with the changes that have been made to the bill, I am not comfortable with the policy. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that we keep this opioid package in the context of a larger healthcare debate in Congress. As I have stated before, my Republican colleagues are interested in taking credit today for some policies that helped those affected by the crisis while at the same time actively threatening and sabotaging the very healthcare coverage that many of the same people rely on in the first place. The ongoing efforts by House Republicans and the Trump administration to repeal or sabotage the Affordable Care Act have only harmed those affected by this crisis. Earlier this month, Republicans directly threatened the healthcare of people with opioid use disorder when the Trump administration asked a Federal court to strike down key patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Trump administration's action would eliminate protections that ensure more than 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. And guess what is considered to be a preexisting condition? Opioid use disorders and people with it. Republicans also continue with their attempts to gut the Medicaid program, which is our most important weapon in the fight against this epidemic. Both the consumer protections of the ACA and Medicaid have saved countless lives that would have otherwise been destroyed by the opioid crisis. So it is nice that we are passing this bipartisan package today, but we should not forget the tremendous harm Republican policies would inflict elsewhere on the same people we seek to help with this opioid package. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).