Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill and also to the rule. Just a few weeks ago, we observed the fifth anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey's recovery from that traumatic event has been prolonged in part by issues facing the National Flood Insurance Program. Too many of my constituents are still dealing with high premiums and inaccurate flood maps or are still waiting for their Sandy claims appeals to be decided. We need a long-term NFIP reauthorization that focuses on increasing affordability, investing in mitigation, capping the profits of flood insurance companies, and comprehensively restructuring the claims process--and this bill fails these tests. H.R. 3823 would undermine the NFIP by allowing the development of a private flood insurance market, opening the door to allowing insurance companies to cherry-pick low-risk properties while leaving high-risk ones in the NFIP. This bill does not do enough to address affordability issues and actually increases rates for some policyholders. It will allow commercial properties to opt out of mandatory coverage even if they are in a high-risk zone, which will further decrease the pool and weaken the program. Finally, this bill simply does not do enough to improve transparency and reform the claims process. Enactment of this legislation would make flood insurance more expensive and less available, while not actually addressing the program's many problems. I have actually introduced legislation to tackle NFIP's issues head- on. The bill is the bipartisan SAFE NFIP Reauthorization Act, which would reauthorize the program, cap premium rate increases, authorize funding for more accurate flood mapping, reform the appeals process, and cap the compensation of flood insurance companies. I also offered amendments to the Rules Committee that would improve this bill, including a 10 percent cap on premium increases, increasing the increased cost of compliance from $30,000 to $100,000, capping the profits of flood insurance companies, and other pro-policyholder provisions, but none of these amendments were accepted by the Rules Committee. I hear my Republican colleagues talk about transparency. In fact, this is the 50th closed rule of the year, an all-time record for closed rules. They blocked both Democratic and Republican amendments. The Rules Committee says in its report this is a closed rule. If it is a closed rule, then how can they talk about transparency or process? Some of my Republican colleagues who offered amendments that were denied were Mr. Donovan of New York, affected by Sandy; Mr. Graves of Louisiana, affected by Katrina; and Mr. Pascrell and I, who went through Superstorm Sandy. It is incredible to me that we had a number of Democrats and Republicans who really wanted to reform the flood insurance program in an effective way based on their experiences--not some ideology--based on their experiences in the superstorms that we saw that impacted our districts, and the Rules Committee denied every one of those amendments.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this year's natural disasters have devastated millions of Americans across the country, leaving so many with little more than the smartphone in their pocket. But when these people look to the government for help, they find that too many of the governments' websites aren't made for the computers they have with them all the time--their phones. Our bill takes a big step forward in fixing that issue and helping these Americans get back on their feet. I want to thank Congresswoman Kelly for championing the Connected Government Act in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill, and I hope we can secure passage in the Senate soon.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Rush, our ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043. I support hydropower. It can deliver low-carbon, affordable power if it is well-sited and managed. But these facilities, which are licensed for 30 to 50 years, can do enormous harm to fisheries, agriculture, and recreational cultural resources if not properly overseen. The hydropower licensing process can be more efficient, but electric utilities should not be permitted to operate without license conditions that ensure other public interests are met. As I look at H.R. 3043 and weigh it against the list of stakeholders with interests in the rivers and watersheds that provide hydroelectric facilities their fuel, I see a bill that is unbalanced, regressive, and dangerous; that will harm farmers, fishermen, boaters, Tribes, and drinking water. H.R. 3043 will allow private hydropower companies to use public water resources to generate power and profit, but without mitigating the negative impacts of their facilities on others who rely on our rivers, and without complying with modern environmental laws. H.R. 3043, is a direct assault on States' rights, Tribal rights, and it undercuts major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It prioritizes the use of rivers for power generation above the needs of all other water uses, and it inserts the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission into decisions that it has no authority, experience, or expertise to make. So what this bill will not do is speed up the licensing process. FERC testified before our committee that one of the causes of delay in the licensing process was the failure of the applicant to provide a complete application, yet this bill does nothing to ensure that an applicant provides one. It makes no sense to impose a deadline if there is no clearly defined starting point in the form of a completed application. How can a State make a decision on a water quality certificate if the applicant hasn't submitted the information that State needs to make that decision? While FERC requires applicants to submit a complete application on the matters over which it has direct responsibility, the Commission has many times denied a similar opportunity to State and Federal agencies with regard to matters where they have primacy. In fact, FERC has a history of merely consulting with other stakeholders while dismissing their concerns and failing to incorporate minimal resource protections into hydropower licenses. As an example, FERC recently failed to impose a number of conditions the State of West Virginia included in its water quality certificate for a project on the Monongahela River. FERC did this in spite of the fact that West Virginia acted in a timely manner. West Virginia acted in accordance with its law and delegated responsibility under the Clean Water Act. Yesterday, I sent a letter with several of my colleagues to FERC expressing concern over the process it used on this project. This bill virtually ensures that type of situation will be repeated. Now, a project that is noncontroversial, supported by the State, is likely to be stalled by hearings and other possible litigation that could have been avoided. Mr. Chair, the truth is that H.R. 3043 treats Federal agencies, State governments, and Indian Tribes as second class citizens in this process. FERC is required to consult with them, but consultation does not ensure they will get FERC's support to fulfill their missions. In this bill, all of the discipline is applied to government agencies, but none to the applicant. This is especially true in the case of license renewals. Any license that wants to avoid new investments or operating conditions can certainly do so because FERC will grant them automatic annual license renewal for as many years as they need. Another reason why this bill will not expedite hydroelectric licenses is because, rather than streamlining the process, H.R. 3043 greatly expands litigation opportunities, something that will increase the expense and time required to award a license. It does this by providing for a biased, costly trial-type hearing process to secure decisions in the utility's favor. Current law allows a single opportunity to challenge an agency condition to avoid undue expense and delay in the licensing process. H.R. 3043 expands the opportunities to challenge agency decisions, allows multiple challenges, and moves the venue for these hearings. Not even FERC thinks that this is a good idea. In fact, at our hearing on this bill, the Deputy Associate General Counsel of FERC advised the committee to either retain the existing trial-type hearing process or eliminate it altogether. Well, that advice obviously fell on deaf ears because the bill puts the trial-type hearing process on steroids. In essence, the private hydro companies pick the venue, set the rules, and secure additional points in the license process to challenge conditions that Federal resource agencies or FERC seeks to impose on a license to protect public interests. FERC warned that this change would increase the expense, complexity, and the length of licensing process--hardly the traits you would associate with streamlining. Ultimately, the bill is a bad bill because it is bad for Native Americans; it is bad for the environment; it is bad for recreation; it is bad for farmers and agriculture; and H.R. 3043 is bad for States, that will now find it much harder to protect water quality and manage the waters within their boundaries. Maybe that is why the bill is opposed by States, Tribes, the outdoor recreation industry, and more than 150 national and local environmental organizations. Opponents of the bill include the Western Governors' Association, the Southern States Energy Board, the National Congress of American Indians, the Environmental Council of the States, the Outdoor Alliance, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and the League of Conservation Voters, among many others. Perhaps the ultimate condemnation comes from FERC, which, in testimony before our committee, disputed claims that the bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could increase the complexity and length of the licensing process.'' Hydropower facilities are using our most precious resource: water. I don't think it is too much to ask that facilities awarded long-term licenses and free fuel share the rivers with others. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bottom line is, when you start cutting money from the Prevention Fund, you are cutting prevention programs for kids, adults, the disabled, and, most importantly, the opiates. CDC spends a significant amount of money from the Prevention Fund dealing with the opiate crisis, so don't tell me that somehow this is okay. You are taking money away from opiate prevention. You are taking money away from kids programs like lead poisoning and vaccines. It is unbelievable how much is actually going to be lost from the Prevention Fund because of this bill. I am not interested in what happened in the past. I want to know what is going to happen in the future. We have an opiate crisis. Don't take money away from the Prevention Fund that is used to deal with that crisis. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman from Vermont an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the ranking member of our Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the vice ranking member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is the ultimate absurdity for my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to suggest that somehow I control when a bill comes to the floor of the House of Representatives. The only reason that the Republicans ever delayed bringing this vote to the floor is because they know and I know that, if this bill is partisan, it will never become law. It will go to the Senate, and it will sit there, and the only way that it is going to become law is if it is a bipartisan effort that actually accomplishes something and gets most people to support it. We could keep listening to the other side all day say: Oh, the Democrats delayed the vote. The Democrats delayed the vote. The vote shouldn't be held today. The vote should be delayed today because this is going nowhere. This bill is going nowhere. They know it. You want to keep saying it? You can say it all day for the next hour, but it is the ultimate of absurdity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), who is the ranking member of our Health Subcommittee.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 3922, a partisan bill to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, as well as community health centers and other public health programs. It pains me to be here today, because this should not be a partisan bill. I have tried for months to negotiate with Republicans to develop a bipartisan compromise, but House Republicans chose to spend the first 9 months of this year trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They failed, but now House Republicans are using the reauthorization of CHIP and community health centers as a way to once again sabotage the ACA. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: if Republicans can't repeal the ACA outright, they will cripple it any time they can. This time, Republicans are risking the healthcare of nearly 9 million children and the care of families all around the country that use community health centers. They are risking that care because this partisan bill has no chance of ever becoming law. By taking this route, Republicans are guaranteeing that CHIP and community health centers will not be reauthorized until the end of the year, and that is extremely unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support CHIP, our community health centers, and all of our public health programs that are extended in this bill. These programs have traditionally been bipartisan, but the bill before us extends these programs by taking billions of dollars away from the Affordable Care Act and undermining Medicare. In short, this Republican bill offers a false choice. On one hand, it strips healthcare away from upwards of 680,000 Americans and guts the Prevention Fund, which pays for immunization and vaccines, lead poisoning prevention, opioid treatment, and many other important programs; on other hand, it reauthorizes these important programs. Democrats strongly support reauthorization of these programs, but we reject the way Republicans are paying for them. Mr. Speaker, there are so many other policies that save money, countless alternatives that Democrats have offered to Republicans for months. Yesterday I offered an alternative that would have provided a robust reauthorization and extension of these important programs, and it was paid for in a commonsense way. My alternative would have changed the timing of payments to Medicare Advantage Plans. This approach was recommended by both the GAO and the Office of the Inspector General, but Republicans rejected it in the Rules Committee. They wouldn't even allow it to come before the full House for a vote. And why is because they would rather use reauthorization of CHIP and community health centers as another way to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. I simply reject that approach and strongly urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk about this use of the Prevention Fund. Democrats have never supported the type of drastic cuts to the Prevention Fund that is in this proposal today. In fact, when faced with such cuts, we voted ``no'' nine times. In the two cases where we voted in favor of using some of the Prevention Fund as an offset, neither cut placed the CDC programs and efforts at risk as this legislation does today. The Republican proposal would cut the Prevention Fund nearly in half and leave a $400 million hole in funding for prevention and health programs within the CDC's budget beginning in 2019. This cut would be devastating to local, State and Federal efforts to protect the Nation's health. Unlike my Republican counterparts, what they contend, this cut to these programs would not be made up in the annual appropriations process, as evidenced by the proposed cut of $198 million to the CDC in the House Republican fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill, and the decrease of $580 million in CDC funding since 2010 when adjusted for inflation. Again, you talk about opiates, you talk about children's health programs. These would be drastically cut because of what they are doing today to the Prevention Fund. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).