Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from North Carolina that her vote for this bill will result in 80,600 people from her congressional district losing health coverage and care. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Pennsylvania that his vote for this bill will result in 37,100 people from his congressional district losing health coverage and care. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. PALLONE. What is the total time remaining currently?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Walden is completely mischaracterizing the bill that was led by Mr. Cardenas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very telling that the gentleman from Oregon has no more speakers on his side for what they claim to be a very significant bill, and it certainly is significant; but the reason for that, in my opinion, is because this Republican bill is hurting real people. Don't tell the real people, don't tell the Americans in my district or the rest of the country who are coming to your doors and going to your legislative offices and calling you by the thousands to tell you not to pass this bill, don't tell them your answer that I hear over and over again: Well, trust us. Trust us. The problem is we have to look at the bill that is before us today. This is a terrible bill. Millions of people, 24 million people, are going to lose their insurance. Many more are going to pay a lot more out of pocket with higher deductibles and higher copays. And the worst part of all is you are allowing the insurance companies to sell junk insurance that doesn't even cover their care; it doesn't even necessarily provide any coverage. So I ask my colleagues on the other side, think of the people. Think about your heart. Think about what this really means. And if you look at it, you will know that this is a bad bill and should be defeated. Vote ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could we just ask the total because then maybe we can figure it out on the minority side?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 130th Anniversary of Second Baptist Church in Long Branch, New Jersey. Its members will celebrate this milestone during Sunday service on March 12, 2017 and it is my honor to join them in marking this significant occasion. Since its humble beginnings at the home of Ephraim Bell in 1887, Second Baptist Church has grown structurally and in membership, while continuing to provide outstanding spiritual guidance to the community. The construction of the church building where the church still stands today began in 1904, under the leadership of Rev. Asbury Smallwood. To accommodate the growing congregation over the years, an educational wing was constructed in the late 1970s and a second Sunday service was added in 2000. Throughout its 130 year history, Second Baptist Church has also expanded its vision and service to the community. In addition to serving the spiritual needs of its members, Second Baptist Church is also home to the Portuguese congregation led by Rev. Aloisio Campos, Jr. The church has also served as a Monmouth County Head Start facility as well as a New Hope tutoring program location. Its current pastor, Rev. Aaron N. Gibson, Sr., serves as the 13th pastor of the church and has dedicated over 20 years of service to the congregation. Under his leadership, the church has seen significant growth and remains a mainstay of the community. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Second Baptist Church on its 130th Anniversary. Its service to the community is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Sumgait pogroms, one of the most horrific attacks against the Armenian people, committed at the hands of Azerbaijanis 29 years ago. On February 27, 1988, hundreds of 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 innocent Armenians. For nearly 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 this event 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 2017, 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 and allow them to go unpunished and unrecognized 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 102nd 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 and renewing our commitment to achieving a collective peace.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43. This resolution is simply another attack on women's health and another attempt by Republicans to limit women's access to high-quality, essential care. For decades, title X family planning program has funded grants that provide millions of Americans each year with access to a broad range of preventive health services, including contraception care and cancer screenings. Title X is a critical safety net for low-income women and teens; and for many patients, this program is their only source of health care. But the Republicans want to limit access to these services and allow States to discriminate against certain providers, all as part of their ongoing ideological crusade against abortion. I stress, this resolution would permit States to prohibit reproductive healthcare providers from participating in the title X program, and would allow States to block access to care if the provider separately performs abortions or is affiliated with health centers that do. Now, we already have seen what happens when States take actions to discriminate against providers in the title X program. Access goes down, the unintended pregnancy rate goes up, and the spread of sexually transmitted infections increases. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution because Republicans should not be entitled to pick and choose providers in the title X program and play politics with women's health.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I second and reiterate what my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton) just said about Gary Andres. I actually remember, when I was first elected to Congress in 1988 and when the first President Bush was President, being outside of the Capitol, outside the House Chambers and talking to Gary. He was, I believe, the White House congressional liaison at the time. I was a young Member and didn't really know what was going on around here with a Republican President; and Gary was so warm, so helpful, trying to help me out, even though I was of the other party, even though I was a freshman Member. And that continued on so many occasions, both under President Bush and, of course, afterwards and most recently, with the Energy and Commerce Committee as a staff director. What Representative Upton said is absolutely true, Gary was always the fighter for the Republicans, for the majority; but at the same time, he always wanted to work with Democrats. Gary, like Congressman Upton, believed very strongly that if we were going to accomplish anything, it had to be done on a bipartisan basis. I know Congressman Upton mentioned in particular the 21st Century Cures Act, but it was true with everything. One of the reasons that we were so successful, I think, in the last session in doing so many pieces of legislation that were important to the country was not only because of Congressman Upton and his leadership, but also because of Gary and his working with Jeff Carroll, who is our minority staff director. So I wish Gary well. There are very few people that I can say, over the last 29 years that I have been here, who was always trying to reach out and do the right thing. I think that is so important. So congratulations and good luck in the future, Gary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.J. Res. 38, which would disapprove the Department of the Interior's stream protection rule. When the Obama administration announced the final stream protection rule, it was a victory for those who live in coal country. The rule prioritizes the health of our fellow Americans by establishing clear requirements for responsible surface coal mining, especially dangerous mountaintop removal mining. If this Obama rule were fully enforced, it would protect or restore 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests over the next two decades. At the time the rule was finalized, I called for stronger stream buffer zone protections, but the announced regulation was undoubtedly a win for human health, clean water, and our environment. I want to be very clear about what the stream protection rule does. This rule requires that mining companies avoid practices that permanently pollute streams and sources of drinking water, damage forests, and increase flood risks. The rule requires, for the first time, that streams around mining sites be monitored and tested for the presence of toxic chemicals, like lead and arsenic. This rule also requires mining companies to restore polluted streams and replant mined areas with native trees and vegetation. These provisions ensure that mining companies take responsibility for their actions and act to ensure that coal country communities do not suffer because of destructive mining practices. Now we are debating an ill-conceived resolution which would negate these important advances. If this rule were to be overturned, American families living near impacted streams and rivers will not be protected from toxic chemicals getting into their water. What is even more appalling is that, because the Congressional Review Act prevents substantially similar regulations from being developed in the future, this joint resolution means that these affected communities might never be protected from the impacts of mining waste in their water. Protecting our rivers and streams from the damaging impacts of mountaintop removal has been a priority for me, and it is why in past Congresses I have introduced the Clean Water Protection Act, which would end the dumping of mining waste into our country's rivers and streams. I will be reintroducing that legislation this session. It is unfathomable that congressional Republicans would pass this joint resolution and doom generations of children and families to irreparable harm. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7--another radical attempt by House Republicans to attack women's health and limit women's access to comprehensive care. The real purpose of this bill is to effectively eliminate insurance coverage for abortion services, not only for federally funded coverage, but also for private health insurance by raising taxes on women, their families, and small businesses. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill just codifies the Hyde Amendment, which already prohibits federal funding for abortion except in limited cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, and it is already enacted each year in appropriations. But in reality, this bill goes much further than that. Instead of just limiting the Hyde Amendment's reach to federal funds, this bill would place sweeping restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend their own private dollars when obtaining insurance coverage. Women and their families who have insurance through the health insurance marketplaces would no longer be entitled to premium tax credits if the plan in which they are enrolled includes abortion coverage. Small business employers would be prohibited from receiving small business tax credits if the insurance provided to employees includes abortion services. This would mean that women would likely forgo comprehensive coverage in order to retain the premium tax credits they need, and small businesses may limit coverage to ensure they receive small business tax credits. But this is the true goal for proponents of this bill: to effectively eliminate insurance coverage for abortion. As we speak, Republicans are actively working to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, to restrict access to contraception, and to defund the life-saving health care services provided by Planned Parenthood. It seems that this bill is another page in their playbook to attack women's health. Let me be clear: this bill isn't about ensuring federal finds are not used for abortion--this bill is about denying women access to coverage Republicans disagree with. Bringing this bill to the floor only days after millions of women throughout the country marched on behalf of issues like reproductive rights just shows how tone-deaf House Republicans continue to be. We should be working to protect and expand women's access to comprehensive health care, not considering ways to deny it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to start today by congratulating him on taking the reins of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. That subcommittee is a critical part of the Energy and Commerce Committee and serves an important role for Congress as a whole. Congresswoman Eshoo left big shoes to fill, but I am confident that, with Ranking Member Doyle and his longtime expertise in this area, the subcommittee is in capable hands. I also thank our colleague from Tennessee, who is now the chairwoman of the subcommittee. The gentlewoman basically summarized what I was going to say about this bill, so I will try not to be too repetitive. But I do want to ask support for my bill, H.R. 588, the Securing Access to Networks in Disasters Act, or SANDy Act. Superstorm Sandy had a traumatic effect on my district back in New Jersey, and we saw firsthand how critical communication networks can be damaged during emergencies. Broadcast and cable networks provide crucial information that helps us stay out of harm's way, and phone and Internet access makes sure we can call for help and keep track of our loved ones. Unfortunately, when Sandy ripped through the Northeast, many of these networks went down when we needed them most. Across the region, nearly 1 in 4 cell towers were knocked out. But in some of the hardest-hit areas of New Jersey, as many as half of the towers were actually down. Many of them stayed down for weeks. That is why I have spent the past several years figuring out what went right and what went wrong. Initially, I worked with the Nation's largest wireless carriers and the Federal Communications Commission to put together a voluntary resiliency framework. That framework, as Mrs. Blackburn mentioned, makes sure that if one cell network goes down, like AT&T did during Sandy in my district, its customers can access another network, like Verizon, that was still operational. Everyone, I think, should be able to call for help as long as any signal is available. Mr. Speaker, the voluntary resiliency framework will save lives during major emergencies in the future, and I would like to thank the wireless carriers and the FCC for working with me to craft that comprehensive agreement. Having these networks operational can mean the difference between life and death during an event like Superstorm Sandy. The other major problem during Sandy was the inability of communications services to repair their equipment. The SANDy Act will recognize the critical role that wireline and mobile telephone, Internet, radio, and TV broadcast, cable and satellite services play during emergencies. For example, ``The RAT,'' which is a radio station at the Jersey Shore, switched from music to 24-hour news coverage right after Sandy, and that helped people to access vital services in the days after the storm. These providers will receive, pursuant to the SANDy Act, priority access to otherwise restricted areas during emergencies like other utilities to help them repair and maintain their communications equipment during disasters. The SANDy Act will begin a process to provide 911 services over WiFi hotspots during emergencies. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a commonsense, bipartisan bill. It passed the House last Congress on a vote of 389-2. I urge all Members to support the bill. I understand the bill has been scheduled for a markup in the Senate tomorrow. So, hopefully, once they do their work, we can get this bill to the President and signed into law.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have listened to every Republican who spoke during this budget debate, and I am convinced they will repeal the ACA and run. There will never be a replacement because they don't have the votes for it. The Republicans are ideologues. They don't believe we should regulate insurance companies or help people pay for their premiums, so they can never support a replacement plan that would do these things. The ACA is a market-based plan to deal with the healthcare crisis that we faced 8 years ago. More and more people didn't have health insurance. Insurance companies wouldn't sell them health insurance if they had a preexisting condition like cancer. People were paying more and more out of pocket, and the fact of the matter is that we stepped in in a practical way, not because we were ideologues, because we were looking at the situation practically to help people. What did we do? We provided 20 or 30 million people who didn't have insurance with insurance. For those who had health insurance through their employer, we guaranteed them a good benefit package, and we limited their out-of-pocket costs. We looked at this practically because we are trying to help the American people. We were not ideologues. We didn't care about whether you were on the left or the right. But what the Republicans are doing today is really a farce. They don't care about the average American. They don't care about all these people who have insurance now who didn't have it before, about the benefits that they are getting, that their out-of-pocket costs have been limited. No. They are just ideologues. They want to repeal this. They have no intention of ever replacing it, in my opinion, and they want to go back to the good old days when the insurance companies controlled the market. That is what we are going to have. Repeal and run, that is what you are doing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has declared its intent to immediately pass legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. That means millions of Americans with health insurance today will lose their coverage. That is people like Michelle from New Brunswick in my district who recently wrote to me and said: ``As a survivor of childhood cancer, I am deeply concerned about the repeal of the ACA, which could bar me from obtaining health insurance due to my pre-existing conditions. ``I accessed coverage from the ACA insurance exchange when I lost my job due to a health condition in 2014-2015. Because I had affordable coverage, I was able to obtain the necessary care needed to recover from the long-term effects from cancer. Now, I'm back on my feet, working, and contributing to the American economy. ``I urge you to please defend the ACA and help the 335,000-plus cancer survivors in New Jersey who depend on it.'' Mr. Speaker, the public deserves thorough and complete information on how working families will fare compared to today if the law is repealed. Health care means life or death for American families. It is also nearly 18 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. Often a hospital or health system is the largest employer in a county or town. We can't afford to be capricious with our approach to health care.