Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, you know, I respect my colleague from Oregon, but you have done nothing over the last year but sabotage the Affordable Care Act and sabotage healthcare in this country. The fact of the matter is that the only reason you are willing to bring up this CHIP bill as part of the CR is because you put in a tax plan that eliminates the mandate for health insurance, which means 13 million people are not going to have health insurance in this country over the next few years, and the money that would have subsidized their premium now does not have to be paid. So all of a sudden you say: Okay, we will put a 6-year CHIP bill on the floor. The pay-fors were not only from the Prevention Fund. The pay-fors also said that if somebody didn't pay their health insurance within 30 days, they were going to lose their health insurance. And the CBO said that another 500,000 people would lose their health insurance. Everything that this majority has done since day one of this session has been to sabotage the ACA and not allow people to even know that they can buy insurance through the exchange, taking away their cost- sharing subsidies. The list is endless. And for you to come up here today and suggest that somehow you care about the kids and you are going to have CHIP continue for the next 6 years, where are those kids going to go? You haven't done anything about community health centers. Forty to fifty percent of them have to use community health centers because people won't take CHIP. You haven't done anything about the hospitals, the disproportionate share hospitals that many of them have to go to. That is not addressed in this legislation. So the only reason that you have brought this bill and put it on the CR is because of the fact that you have sabotaged health insurance for millions of Americans. So don't stand up here and tell me that somehow the Republican Party cares about the kids. They don't. And you also know that this was not going to pass. You know that it wasn't going to pass. You are not trying to act in a bipartisan, bicameral way. You know that this is going nowhere. You are responsible for the shutdown, and putting CHIP in the bill is part of that responsibility that you have created here today. So don't go on and on and on about how the Republican Party cares about the kids. The Republican Party does not.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my Republican chairman from Oregon, but he just forgets completely, as so many speakers on the GOP side have, that they are in the majority, and they have a significant majority. They can do whatever they want. For him to suggest that somehow he can't bring up a CHIP bill that also includes all these other health programs he mentioned, the community health centers--I could also mention all the Medicare extenders that are not included in this bill. This bill basically either lets expire or continues to expire so many things that are important for the health of the American people, not only the community health centers, which expire in a few weeks; not only the Medicare extenders, which includes the therapy caps for seniors and Medicare; the home visiting program for seniors; the special diabetes program; the teaching health centers; the National Health Service Corps; all of these things; also, the safety net hospitals. As of January 1, the DSH or safety net programs for all these hospitals around the country that have to take care of so many poor people, that funding has expired and they have actually had to cut the funding. So how do you stand up here and say to me and the American people that somehow you care about these things, you want to deal with these things? You are not dealing with these things. What are you doing here again? Once again, you are bringing a bill to the floor that has all kinds of repeal of taxes. I don't even want to get into the deal. These are the taxes that help fund the Affordable Care Act, the medical device tax; there are several of them. All you do here is bring up tax cuts, or tax repeals, and now you are trying to give the impression, because you have the 6-year reauthorization for CHIP and have eliminated funding and help for all of these healthcare programs, that somehow you care. Well, when the kids that get the CHIP funding can't go to a community health center or can't go to a hospital because they are suffering and don't have the funding, where do they go? We know that CHIP is a great program, but many of the kids who have the insurance under CHIP have to go to community health centers. And all I hear from my community health centers and other teaching hospitals is they are ready to send out the pink slips. They may have to close. They are not sure they can help these people. So it is a complete joke to suggest that somehow you care. You have the votes; you can do whatever you want. You are not doing it. Sure, I also agree that DACA, the DREAMers, are going to suffer because that is not being addressed either. But the main thing I want to stress is, you are not addressing all these other healthcare programs that are just as important as CHIP, just as important, and make CHIP essentially not viable because they are not being addressed. So please don't suggest to me that you care. The right vote here is to vote against this CR.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed when I hear my Republican colleagues talk about how they brought CHIP to the floor and they brought community health centers to the floor. What they forget to mention is that every time they did that, they included pay-fors, in other words, funding measures that would basically sabotage the Affordable Care Act. We have seen a concerted effort not only to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which failed, but then to do everything possible to make it more difficult for people to get their health insurance. We know that in the tax plan--or tax scam--that they passed a few weeks ago that they were so determined to spend all their time on that, what did they do? They eliminated the mandate that people have health insurance. The CBO estimates that there will be 13 million Americans, over the next few years, who will lose that health insurance. When they talked about CHIP in those previous times, what did they do? They put in provisions that cut the Prevention Fund that funds all the programs for children. They put in a provision that said that, if you didn't pay your health insurance within 30 days, you would lose it. CBO estimated that something like half a million Americans would lose their insurance because of that provision. They put in provisions that said that people who got their Medicare had to pay more for it--pay even 100 percent--depending upon their income. They have done everything possible to sabotage the healthcare system. For them to get up and say, ``Oh, we care about kids; we care about community health centers,'' nothing is further from the truth because everything has been done to sabotage the healthcare system.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Legal Services of New Jersey on its 50th anniversary. This milestone and the incredible work of Legal Services of New Jersey are truly deserving of this body's recognition. Established in 1962, Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) became the umbrella organization of the coordinated county legal services programs in 1963. Since then, LSNJ has provided a strong, unified administration of services across New Jersey and continues to be a leading voice and advocate for economically disadvantaged communities. Today, LSNJ serves clients in all twenty-one counties across New Jersey through its five regional programs, Legal Services of Northwest Jersey, Northeast New Jersey Legal Services, Essex-Newark Legal Services, Central Jersey Legal Services and South Jersey Legal Services. With twenty-three local offices throughout its network, LSNJ aims to be as accessible as possible. To date, over 2.4 million cases have been handled. LSNJ affords low-income individuals resources, information and representation to pursue civil legal action. These services and aid help ensure that there is equal opportunity and protections for those who would otherwise be unable to secure a lawyer. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Legal Services of New Jersey as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. The organization continues to provide essential legal assistance to New Jersey's neediest residents.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I forgot to thank some of the staff who worked so hard on this on my side of the aisle: Jaqueline Cohen, who is sitting here; Rick Kessler; Tuley Wright; Mary Martin; and I know there were others. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, so I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by talking about how important this program has been to our Nation and, in particular, to my home State, since it was created back in 2002. New Jersey has too many of these types of contaminated sites, and we need Federal help to clean them up and redevelop them. For example, a former Dupont property on the waterfront in Carteret is being redeveloped to be a ferry terminal to carry commuters to New York City. That site is a great example of how a redeveloped brownfields site can be beneficial for the community. Asbury Park, another town in my district, received two substantial Federal brownfields grants last year. One of those grants is being used to assess eight contaminated sites and prepare two cleanup plans. The other grant is going to assessing and redeveloping sites around the train station and the downtown area that were contaminated with petroleum. Just this week, I visited another brownfields site being redeveloped in my district, the Woodbridge Waterfront Park. When completed, the waterfront park will include approximately 30 acres of restored wetlands, walking trails, a boardwalk overlooking the wetlands, and a viewing platform on the Raritan River. So Federal funds through the brownfields program help make these projects happen. The brownfields program is proof that having a strong economy and protecting the environment is not an either/or issue. We can have both. I am pleased to support this bipartisan bill. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. And I thank the gentleman for raising this drafting issue. The bill's provisions on nonprofit entities were meant to reflect the EPA's current practice. It now appears that we have inadvertently excluded some organizations that receive grants under that current practice. It is unfortunate that the technical assistance bringing this issue to our attention was provided so late in the process, but I hope we can work together to ensure that the EPA is providing testimony and technical assistance in a much more timely fashion moving forward. So I want to thank the gentleman for working with Democrats to develop this legislation, which will provide significant environmental and public health benefits. I believe we can continue to work together as we move this bill into law to address this drafting issue.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, EPA's brownfields program has changed the way contaminated property is perceived, addressed, and managed. I was proud to work with the late Republican Congressman Paul Gillmor in creating the brownfields program back in 2002, and I am proud to be here once again today as we bring up a bipartisan reauthorization of this law. I want to thank our Environment Subcommittee, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, our full committee chairman, Mr. Walden, for all their work in getting us to this point today, and, also, my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. By almost any metric, the brownfields program has been a remarkable success. Since the program's inception, more than 27,000 contaminated sites have been assessed or remediated, allowing communities to create new developments. Removing public health hazards by cleaning up contaminated sites is incredibly important for the surrounding communities. With financial help from the Federal Government, communities can clean up contaminated sites and prepare them for development for parks, commerce, housing, or a number of other uses that can benefit a local community. The EPA has found that cleaning up underutilized or abandoned brownfields properties reduces health risks, decreases pollution, and reduces storm water runoff. But this is not just a program that provides environmental benefits. It is a job creator that primes the pump for local investment and development. All told, the brownfields program has leveraged over $45 billion in investments surrounding these sites and almost 130,000 jobs, which is a stunning return on the Federal Government's modest investment in the program. Simply put, it provides tremendous value to the Federal Government and a boost to the economy in local communities. The brownfields program has been an incredibly important tool for protecting public health and spurring economic growth in New Jersey and throughout the country. The original authorization for the program expired in 2006, and while Congress has continued to appropriate resources for the program, funding has declined. Last year, there was a question as to whether the President would request any funding for this important program. So it is important that we reauthorize the brownfields program. I stress the need for continued funding. H.R. 3017 is a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes the program until 2022, at $200 million annually, and reinstates a $50 million annual authorization for grants to assist States and Native American Tribes. And it makes important reforms to improve the flexibility of the brownfields program: authorizing multipurpose grants; raising the limits for grants per site; and removing some funding caps in current law. Mr. Speaker, the bill also allows EPA to reserve as much as $1.5 million in brownfields funding each year to assist small communities, Tribes, and rural or disadvantaged areas. Grants could be used for training, research, and technical assistance. Additionally, H.R. 3017 would require the EPA to consider the potential for renewable energy production when ranking applications for brownfields grants to incentivize green energy projects. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a compromise. I would have liked to include more funding for this important program, but I believe this bill will improve the program and bolster the Federal Government in cleaning up these sites, and I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation. I do think it is a good compromise dealing with these military emergencies, but at the same time making sure that the FDA, which has responsibility for approving medical products, still retains its authority. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that would authorize additional emergency uses for medical products in response to the needs of the Department of Defense in the instance of a military emergency. Like all of my colleagues, I want to ensure that our military personnel who put their life in harm's way for our freedom have access to the medical products that they need, and I have supported and will continue to support policies that further the goal of protecting our troops from life-threatening risks. However, these policies also have to be balanced to ensure that, in our effort to protect troops from harm, we are not inadvertently exposing them to additional risk from unproven products. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the National Defense Authorization Act conference report included a policy supported by the Senate that would have given the Secretary of Defense authority to authorize emergency access to unapproved medical products, an authority that solely rests within the Food and Drug Administration today. This provision was not the subject of hearing and debate, did not receive the congressional oversight it should have, and I believe decisions of such consequence should go through regular order, providing Members and stakeholders with the opportunity to learn fully of the risks and benefits associated with transferring regulatory oversight of medical products to an agency that is not equipped with the expertise and medical product knowledge of the FDA. While I am not pleased with the process and how it has unfolded, I do support H.R. 4374 because I believe it will maintain emergency use authority with the agency that has the resources and scientific expertise needed to make decisions about access to unproven medical products. It is solely the FDA that has been charged with weighing the risks and benefits of medical products and making determinations as to their safety and effectiveness, and this legislation maintains the FDA's important role in that process. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4374 not only addresses the Department of Defense's concerns about access to medical products in instances of military emergencies, but it also goes further by providing them with additional support, in this instance, to expedite the development and review of medical products that are of priority to the Department. It also commits FDA to regularly meeting with the Department of Defense to discuss their priorities and product pipelines. So I just want to thank FDA Commissioner Gottlieb, Chairman Walden, Senate Health Committee Chairman Alexander, and Ranking Member Murray for working to find a compromise that will maintain proper regulatory oversight over emergency uses of unproved medical products, while also ensuring that our Nation's military has access to the products that they need in a military emergency situation. I do urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.