Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I have great concerns that H.R. 5247 would expose our most vulnerable and desperate patients to unnecessary risk. Supporters of this legislation have argued that those patients who are suffering from a terminal illness deserve the right to take their health and treatment into their own hands, as they are faced without any other treatment options. Some have even asked: What risk could be worse than the risk of death? As Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist from NYU, has pointed out: ``There are things worse than death; being made to die faster, being made to die more miserably.'' These are all very real scenarios that patients could be exposed to under the misleading and ill-conceived right-to-try pathway. As I stated before, while the FDA approved 99 percent of the requests it received, of those, they revised 11 percent in order to protect patients. If this bill becomes law, the FDA no longer will have the opportunity to make those revisions and to protect vulnerable patients. We must protect patients from bad actors or from dangerous treatments that might make their lives worse. That is why more than 100 organizations have written in opposition to this legislation, including 83 patient organizations like the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Friends of Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network. In a letter to the Speaker and the Democratic leader, the patient organizations noted that ``the alternative pathway in the latest version of the legislation is still less safe for our patients than the current expanded access process'' that the FDA uses. Dr. Ellen Sigal, the chair and founder of Friends of Cancer Research, said: ``In its current form, the proposed legislation does nothing for patients other than provide false hope by allowing them to request a drug with no evidence of efficacy they may never receive and, should they receive it, may do more harm than good.'' So I think we should all be concerned about protecting patients. Rather than rushing this bill through today, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to come back to the table to find a solution that will streamline Expanded Access Programs while protecting patients from unnecessary harm. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons to oppose this bill today, and I have given a number of them, but the primary reason being the need to continue protecting patients by ensuring that the FDA remains a part of the process. While we are speaking about process, I have to also oppose this legislation based on the inappropriate way the Republican majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Bills considered under suspension have traditionally gone through the committee process with overwhelming bipartisan support, and neither of those things is the case with this bill. It was introduced today. Does the majority really believe they are giving Members the appropriate time to view this bill when it was introduced at 2 p.m.? Patient access and patient safety should be shared goals among Democrats and Republicans, goals that could be achieved if this legislation was not being rushed to the floor under an arbitrary deadline. Legislation such as this, that carries such great risk of patient harm, should be considered carefully, with attention paid to the unintended consequences that could follow. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and risky legislation, and to return to the regular order of the committee to consider legislation that would protect both patients from harm and the FDA from the weakening of the agency's role in our drug approval process. We should not be voting on a bill of this consequence that was introduced this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many speakers he has left.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1119, the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act''. The SENSE Act continues yesterday's latest effort by Republicans to undermine the commonsense protections found in the Clean Air Act in order to give special breaks to polluters at the expense of public health. The winner of today's Republican special breaks are power plants that burn waste coal. The SENSE Act would give power plants that burn waste coal for energy a free pass on critical public health protections that keep dangerous toxins out of the air. It does this by giving waste coal power plants a carve-out from the pollution control requirements of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxic Standards--or MATS Rule. This rule represents the first national standards to address power plant emissions of toxic air pollutants like mercury, arsenic, dioxin, sulfur dioxide and hydrochloric acid. The SENSE Act provides a weaker compliance option for MATS that would give waste coal facilities license to pollute more than they should. And, the bill would lock in this weaker standard for the foreseeable future. That means a small number of waste coal units would be allowed to avoid controlling harmful pollution in perpetuity, regardless of any subsequent developments in control technologies, or new information on the health effects of their pollution. Passing this bill means waste coal power plants would never have to clean up their act, putting the health and safety of those nearby and downwind in jeopardy. So, why are we even discussing such a ridiculous sweetheart deal? Because the waste coal industry says they need, and deserve, a legislative earmark, just for using the coal that wasn't good enough to burn in other power plants. But that claim doesn't pass the smell test. EPA determined, and the D.C. Circuit Court agreed, that since emissions from waste coal units are no different than emissions from other coal-fired power plants, there is no justification for special treatment. Many of the waste coal plants already meet the requirements of the MATS rule, because in reality, waste coal plants are among the best performing coal-fired power plants in the country. I see no justification for giving waste coal plants the ability to pollute more than other facilities, as the SENSE act would allow. These special breaks are especially offensive to me since I represent a down-wind state. Pollution generated west of New Jersey moves into our air shed threatening the public health and welfare of my constituents. It also increases the burden on New Jersey businesses that would ultimately be required to do more and spend more to compensate for the extra pollution generated by these plants. The Republicans claim that EPA is over-regulating business. But, time and again, the courts have found that EPA is actually failing to regulate pollutants known to cause harm. This Mercury and Air Toxics rule has been in development and litigation for nearly 20 years--the time it takes for a child to reach adulthood. That's more than enough delay, enough mercury, and enough toxic air pollution. It's time to clean it up. Republican-led attacks on clean air protections will not create jobs, nor will they magically build infrastructure. All a Yes vote on this dirty air bill will do is boost profits for Republican allies, and make it easier for corporate polluters to contaminate the air in our neighborhoods. Meanwhile our children's health is threatened and their future is sold out, all in the name of more corporate profits. I strongly oppose the SENSE Act, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting No.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1917, the so- called ``Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2017.'' This is the first in a series of dirty air proposals on the floor this week. The BRICK Act is part of the ongoing effort by Republicans to undermine the commonsense protections found in the Clean Air Act, in order to give special breaks to polluters at the expense of public health. We have seen this bill before. Last Congress we debated and voted on the BRICK Act: I opposed it then, and I oppose it now. Frankly, I have even more concerns with this legislation than I did in 2016. That is because the BRICK Act was amended by the Rules Committee to include two separate attacks on clean air safeguards. Like previous versions, this version before us today would indefinitely delay standards to reduce toxic air pollution from brick and clay manufacturers. However, it now also incorporates a separate bill that would delay long-overdue pollution standards for new wood fired heaters. The only thing these bills really have in common is that they both undermine Clean Air Act protections and endanger the health of our children. Regarding the treatment of brick and clay manufacturing facilities, the bill automatically delays implementation of EPA's final Brick and Clay rule by extending all deadlines . . . by however long it takes to complete all possible litigation. This blanket extension would be given to all facilities covered by the final rule, without regard for the merits of the legal challenges or their final outcome. But that is not Congress' job. The courts already have the ability to issue a ``stay'' of any compliance dates in a final rule. Delaying a rule for legitimate reasons does not require action by Congress, but a legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill appear to care about. By throwing out the existing judicial process, Republicans are giving polluters an incentive to ``run the clock'' on frivolous litigation, to put off ever controlling their pollution. This is especially problematic because Administrator Pruitt has announced plans to reconsider the Brick and Clay rule, which is expected to be finalized in 2019. At that point, the pollution control standards for brick and clay facilities will be almost two decades overdue, and this bill would delay those protections even longer. The new wood heater provision is not much better. The bill delays EPA's pollution standards for new wood-fueled heaters that have not been updated in nearly 30 years. The final rule included a gradual, five-year phase in to allow manufacturers time to adapt and develop cleaner and more efficient technologies, and the phase 2 requirements don't kick in until 2020. These newer appliances are a win for consumers. The 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate. But, with this provision, Republicans are picking winners and losers. They are rewarding companies that refused to clean up their dirty and inefficient products, while punishing innovative companies that invested in developing cleaner and more efficient technologies for wood heaters. Ultimately, the BRICK Act is really more about transferring burdens than relieving them. This so-called ``relief'' from regulation comes at the expense of our children's health. Moreover, it doesn't reduce costs; it merely transfers them from favored businesses to the general public who will pay for more doctor visits and lost work or school days as a result. My Republican colleagues repeatedly claim they support clean air, and yet, they continually put forward bill after bill designed to delay, weaken, or repeal safeguards that protect public health by cleaning up the air. Passing this bill allows dirty products to remain in operation for decades into the future, resulting in tons of additional pollution, and putting the health of our children and future generations at risk. Exempting businesses from clean air rules leads to more air pollution. It is that simple. We all want small businesses to thrive, and the history of the Clean Air Act demonstrates clearly that we can grow the economy while cleaning up the air and improving public health. Congress should not be selling out the health and safety of American children. But that is just what a YES vote on the BRICK Act would do. I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this dirty air bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Professor Masood Khatamee, MD as he is honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by Banou, Inc. at their Nowruz celebration on March 16, 2018. It is truly a fitting tribute to honor Dr. Khatamee at this commemoration of the Persian New Year as he is an ardent supporter of the Iranian-American community. A Clinical Professor at the New York University School of Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Khatamee is a leader in both the medical and Persian communities. Dr. Khatamee served as President of the Iranian American Medical Association from 1999 to 2000, is a member and a past president of the Board of Directors of the Shiraz University School of Medicine Alumni Association and is an Honorary Member of the Russian American Medical Association. Dr. Khatamee is a renowned physician, receiving the distinction of Physician of the Year by the White House and the United States Congress as well as the selection as a Top 10 Iranian-American Physician in the United States, among other awards and accolades. Notably, Dr. Khatamee was also nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine. In addition to his work at the New York University School of Medicine, Dr. Khatamee is the Executive Director of the Fertility Research Foundation, Founder and Director of the Society for the Prevention of Human Infertility and a lecturer at the Columbia School of Biomedical Engineering. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Dr. Masood Khatamee on receiving the Banou, Inc. Lifetime Achievement Award. This honor is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), who is the ranking member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 4986, the RAY BAUM'S Act. This bill is the product of extensive bipartisan collaboration. After exhaustive negotiations, we were able to reach a deal that includes bills introduced by Democrats and Republicans in both the House and in the Senate. That does not happen often, and I would like to thank my colleagues for working with me so closely. This bill is a real tribute to its namesake, Ray Baum. Ray had a passion for telecommunications policy and a special place in his heart for broadcasting. Ray was also an eternal optimist. He never faltered in his belief that we could find a way to work together to find a solution, and he was right. We were able to incorporate proposals from Members on both sides of the aisle, just the way Ray would have liked it, and we were able to produce this legislation that will reauthorize the FCC for the first time in 28 years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly mention some aspects of this bill that I am most proud of. First, we were able to include the SANDy Act, which is named to honor those affected by Superstorm Sandy, a storm that ripped through the Northeast, including my district, over 5 years ago. During that superstorm, we saw firsthand how important communications were for survival. From television and radio broadcasters to wireless providers and cable networks, each played its own role in making sure people knew how to find help, look for loved ones, and stay out of harm's way. I used the lessons we learned from Sandy in writing this legislation. When this bill is signed into law, our networks will be stronger, more resilient, and more capable to serve in an emergency. This FCC reauthorization bill also includes the Viewer Protection Act. I introduced the Viewer Protection Act to make sure no viewer loses signal as a result of the FCC's incentive auction. Access to local information has become even more important as the number of natural disasters has increased over the past few years. Not only does this bill help ensure consumers' broadcast stations don't go dark, as part of this bipartisan, bicameral deal, we have agreed to provide $50 million in funding to help educate consumers about the transition. This funding is critical to make sure that people have access to information about how to get their televisions to work. My colleagues will discuss other important aspects of this deal. But before they do, I would like to point out two important provisions that we included as part of the reauthorization. First, we included a provision that makes the FCC's inspector general independent of the Commission's chairman. The IG is currently conducting a number of critical investigations, including one into whether the chairman of the agency has been improperly favoring Sinclair Broadcast Group. But under current law, these investigations are being conducted under a cloud-- the very chairman who is under investigation can obstruct the review by firing the inspector general or his or her staff at any time. So by passing this bill, we are ensuring that these important investigations can conclude without any interference. Finally, I do not normally support unnecessarily cutting the budget of our agencies. But in this case, I would like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to limit this cut to the length of this administration. The current leadership of the FCC, in my opinion, has proven that it cannot be trusted to serve the public interest. Most notably, the agency has ignored its statutory duty and the call of the American people by destroying our net neutrality protections. Net neutrality safeguards our American values by empowering small businesses, creating new jobs, and ensuring free speech online. By limiting the resources that we provide for the next 3 years, this reauthorization will limit this Commission's power, in my opinion, to do more harm. For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan and bicameral agreement embodied by the RAY BAUM'S Act. I would like to also thank the Democratic committee staff--David Goldman, Gerald Leverich, and Dan Miller--for all of their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say, again, that this bill is a bipartisan bill. There has been a lot of work done on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the fact that we are able to accomplish this and also include a lot of initiatives from Members on both sides of the aisle. And, again, as a tribute to Ray Baum and all that he did for us over the many years, I am proud to say that we enthusiastically support the bill and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions Andy Igrejas has made in improving the lives of the American people through his tireless advocacy and expertise in reducing public exposure to harmful chemicals. A native of Bloomfield, New Jersey and a proud graduate of Rutgers College, Andy has worked on environmental health and government reform issues in New Jersey, California, and Washington, D.C. over his decades of service. Every day, we see the steps the Environmental Protection Agency is taking to implement the Lautenberg TSCA Reform law passed in 2016. While that implementation is so far not living up to the letter of the law, we will continue to work to hold the EPA accountable for meeting its essential duty under the law: removing toxic chemicals from commerce and from our homes. We are only able to do this because of important changes that were made in the Lautenberg Act as it went through Congress--changes that came about because of Andy's tireless work and dedication as Executive Director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition. The work to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act began in earnest in 2009, when the major stakeholders published principles for reform. It was that year that Andy organized the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition to create a unified voice for health, environmental, and labor organizations interested in advancing chemical policy reform. With Andy as its director, the coalition has grown to include 450 organizations and small businesses from across the country and across the political spectrum. By unifying these groups, Andy made their voices stronger, strong enough to stand up to extraordinary expenditures from industry interests. Andy's work also kept the interest in TSCA reform alive when negotiating a deal seemed impossible. Andy's appreciation for the role of entrepreneurship and the private sector in creating positive social change led to the coalition's decision to launch Mind the Store, an initiative challenging the nation's largest retailers to restrict hazardous chemicals in their supply chains. It was that effort at the retail level, along with legislative efforts in the states, which kept industry at the table pursuing a comprehensive federal program. I want to thank Andy for his bold thinking, tireless efforts, and strategic counsel to me and my staff, without which many of the public health and environmental improvements in the Lautenberg TSCA reform law would not have been possible.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to congratulate my brother, Long Branch Councilman John Pallone, on his selection as the Amerigo Vespucci Society Man of the Year. I joined the Amerigo Vespucci Society on March 3, 2018 at their 125th dinner gala to celebrate John and recognize his outstanding work. Born and raised in Long Branch, New Jersey, John is a lifelong resident of the city and an active member of the community. Currently serving as Council President, John was first elected to the city council in 1990 and then ran successfully again for a council seat in 2010 where he has served ever since. In this capacity, John has made the safety and well-being of Long Branch residents a priority and continues to focus on the redevelopment of the city, serving as a board member of the Urban Enterprise Zone. In addition to his work as a public servant, John is the Vice President of the Long Branch Free Public Library Board of Trustees, a member of the Amerigo Vespucci Society and a parishioner of Holy Trinity Church. John is the owner of Video Life Productions, a successful video production company that he established in 1982. He and his wife Svetlana are the proud parents of John Thomas. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating John Pallone on his recognition as Man of the Year by the Amerigo Vespucci Society. He is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Sumgait pogroms, one of the most horrific attacks against the Armenian people committed at the hands of Azerbaijanis. On February 27, 1988, up to 200 Armenian civilians living in the city of Sumgait in Azerbaijan were indiscriminately killed, raped, maimed, and even burned alive for no reason other than their ethnicity. This senseless violence was instigated by hostile, anti-Armenian rhetoric from Azerbaijani citizens and officials against these innocent individuals. For three decades, Azerbaijan has taken steps to cover up these crimes against humanity and dismiss the atrocities at Sumgait. Even more disturbing is that perpetrators of these events and similar violent attacks have since been lauded as national heroes. I condemn these horrific attacks. Tragically, the Azerbaijani government's approach toward the Armenian people has not changed much since these attacks were perpetrated. In 2018, we hear the same violent rhetoric and witness the intimidation tactics by the Azerbaijani government against the people of Nagorno Karabakh. If we do not condemn crimes against humanity, we only strengthen the resolve of those seeking to perpetrate these crimes in the future. The Armenian people have known this for too long, as we prepare to commemorate the 103rd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in April. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Congressional Armenian Issues Caucus to remember the victims of the pogroms at Sumgait and to condemn all acts of violence against people who are targeted simply because of their existence. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting violent rhetoric and intimidation by renewing our commitment to achieving a collective and lasting peace.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to pay tribute to the life of Ray Baum, the Republican staff director of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Ray passed away on Friday after a courageous fight against cancer. I will always remember Ray as an optimist. During our ongoing committee negotiations on an autonomous vehicles bill, Ray was always pushing us, looking for a solution that both Democrats and Republicans could support. He was always optimistic about our prospects. Thanks to his prodding, we were able to pass a bipartisan bill out of the committee. Ray was also extremely committed to being a public servant. When we marked up the Republican's ACA repeal bill, the markup went on in committee all night. Ray was sick at that time, but he refused to leave the markup. Finally, Chairman Walden, his staff, and mine convinced Ray to go home. But that did not stop him from watching the lively debate all night long on C-SPAN from home. In fact, my staff was still getting emails throughout the night. My thoughts and prayers go out to Ray's family, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and everyone else who knew Ray. He is going to be sorely missed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for all her work on this and so much other good legislation--not the bill that is on the floor today, though. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 772. This bill would undo years of progress towards implementing menu label requirements and only lead to greater consumer and industry confusion. We included a requirement in the Affordable Care Act that certain restaurants and other retail food establishments with 20 or more locations display calorie and other nutritional information in order to give consumers access to the information they need to make healthy choices in a way that would be consistent and easy to understand. Now, GOP efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act continue with this legislation today, which also undermines the ACA's prevention goals. Unfortunately, H.R. 772 would weaken the current menu labeling requirements and lead to extended compliance delays, putting those establishments who have already begun complying at a disadvantage. While proponents of this bill claim it will increase flexibility for covered entities, in reality, this bill would allow restaurants and other retail food establishments to determine their own serving sizes and what would be the one designated menu or menu board for the purposes of disclosing caloric information. It would also permit establishments to disclose nutritional content for certain food items through a choice of methods instead of utilizing a standardized format. H.R. 772 also would limit the civil liability of covered entities, impeding private citizens' ability to take legal recourse should an establishment fail to comply with the menu labeling requirements. And as I noted when we considered a similar version of this bill in the last Congress, I continue to believe that legislation is not the right approach to address the concerns raised by some industry groups regarding the menu labeling rule. The FDA has been diligently working with stakeholders, since the law was passed, to find a workable approach that provides consumers with transparency when eating out, while also ensuring covered establishments have the tools they need to implement the rule. Just this past November, FDA issued new supplemental draft guidance to help answer any outstanding questions still posed by industry.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the FDA has demonstrated that it is best positioned to address specific concerns with the regulation, and this new guidance is an example that FDA is taking the necessary steps to make compliance attainable. Again, we have a new FDA Administrator appointed by the Trump administration, and he is trying to work with industry to get this done. So we shouldn't roll back the clock and undo the progress we have made. Instead, we should be moving forward with the menu labeling requirements as they currently stand and are set to go into effect in May of this year. H.R. 772, unfortunately, would do the opposite; and, for this reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the bill as well.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1892. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, my Republican colleagues are playing politics with important health programs. Rather than bringing a stand-alone, bipartisan health extenders package to the floor, the Republicans have once again delayed any action on these extenders so that they could attach them to a CR that Democrats could not support. The strategy may hide their inability to pass a final funding bill for a fiscal year that began on October 1, but it has also created uncertainty for the millions of Americans who rely on these programs every day. I am glad that Republicans have dropped some of the harmful offsets that have led to months of delay and uncertainty for these health programs. However, our main concern is that the package excludes important health priorities, including the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; the Health Profession Opportunity Grants program; and the increased funding that is desperately needed to combat the ongoing opioid crisis. The CR poses a serious threat to public health because it cuts $2.85 billion from the Prevention Fund. These funds are critical to keeping Americans healthy. The Prevention Fund funds vaccines for children, lead poisoning prevention, opioid prevention, diabetes, heart disease, and other prevention programs. I am also concerned with the Medicaid cuts in this package. Republicans have included over $10 billion in Medicaid cuts, including new money from the Medicaid Improvement Fund. We should also reject the prioritization of funding for the Defense Department at the expense of all of our domestic needs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' It is the only way we are going to guarantee that, ultimately, these health programs are funded and that we don't rely so much on the Prevention Fund.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that they have taken care of children's health insurance, but that is not the case. They politicized CHIP by adding it to this controversial continuing resolution. If they were really interested in children's health, they would have considered passing this bill separately from the continuing resolution, and we could have included funding for community health centers and other health programs critical to our seniors. Without an extension of funding for community health centers, the future of 142 centers in my State would be in jeopardy. These centers are where more than 200,000 New Jersey kids receive care when they get sick. You can't stand up for children's health when you are refusing to fund community health centers. For weeks, we had been conducting bipartisan negotiations on CHIP, community health centers, and all of the other extenders that are critical to Medicare and to seniors, but Republicans tossed that all aside in favor, yet again, of partisanship. Republicans decided that the Medicare providers, the safety net hospitals, and community health centers didn't matter. It is time for the partisanship to end. Let's get back to the negotiating table and work to pass a bill that includes the extenders, CHIP, community health centers, and all of these other healthcare programs. There is no reason we shouldn't be conducting those negotiations today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution that would immediately reopen the government while negotiations continue on a budget agreement that adheres to parity and other critical issues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the cynical effort by the Republicans to link the Trump shutdown to Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. The fact of the matter is, if the Republicans cared about children's health insurance or anybody's health insurance: They wouldn't have tried repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They wouldn't have put the provision in their tax scam that says that people don't have to buy insurance, which we estimate will result in about 13 million Americans losing their health insurance. They wouldn't have put a CHIP bill on the floor earlier this month, or earlier this year, that basically eliminated or cut back on the prevention fund and, at the same time, said, if you didn't pay your health insurance within the first 30 days, you would lose it, which the CBO says would cause another half a million people to lose their health insurance. If you care about children's health insurance, which you clearly don't, then you don't want to eliminate and cut back on health insurance for the American people in general, which is what you are doing by sabotaging the Affordable Care Act every day. The only reason why you linked the CHIP bill to the CR this week is because you don't have to pay the subsidies for people's health insurance because they are going to lose it.