Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support the bill as well.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I support the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4641, a bill to create an interagency task force on pain management. This legislation passed the committee with unanimous support. In 2014, pharmacies in the United States dispensed approximately 245 million prescriptions for opioids. This is enough to provide a script to every adult in our entire Nation. At the same time, we know that over 5 million Americans use prescription pain relievers either recreationally or to satisfy an opioid addiction. This combination has produced tragic results. 2014 produced the highest number of drug overdose deaths than any previous year on record, with opioids and heroin driving the recent surge. Unfortunately, our Nation's doctors and healthcare providers have not been provided the tools and education necessary to safely prescribe these medications in the midst of an opioid epidemic. Recently, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine examined this topic and found that ``many physicians admit that they are not confident about how to prescribe opioids safely, how to detect abuse or emerging addiction, or even how to discuss these issues with their patients.'' As a result, we have created a patchwork of prescribing practices with tremendous variation both geographically as well as even within the same field. This bill would create an interagency task force on pain management to review, modify, and update best practices on management and development of a strategy to disseminate those best practices to prescribers, pharmacists, and other stakeholders. Those best practices will increase the tools available to providers who prescribe opioids more safely and be able to detect and intervene earlier in instances of substance use disorders. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which is part of the opioid epidemic package that we are moving on the floor today on suspension. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) to offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) would basically add representatives of veterans service organizations to the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force that we have discussed and that we support on a bipartisan basis. I urge support for Mr. Moulton's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for H.R. 4599, commonsense legislation that offers the potential to reduce the number of unused and unwanted prescription opioids that have been misused or diverted as a part of the opioid epidemic. The number of prescription opioids dispensed in the U.S. has nearly quadrupled in the last 15 years, and over 70 percent of adults who misuse prescription opioids get them from a friend or a relative. This is often due to the fact that many patients fill legitimate prescriptions for opioids and for one reason or another do not use the entirety of the prescription. One way to help reduce the amount of unused opioid medications in home medicine cabinets is to permit the partial filling of Schedule II prescriptions. Partial fill policies allow providers, pharmacists, and patients the option to dispense a portion of a prescription with the option of filling the total amount of the prescription at a later time. For example, a patient or practitioner could request that 10 or 15 days of a 30-day prescription be dispensed initially with the remaining portion available later if needed. It is hoped that this additional flexibility would reduce the number of unused pills in circulation and ultimately reduce misuse and diversion of these prescription opioids. Current Drug Enforcement Administration regulations allow pharmacists to partially fill prescriptions for Schedule III, IV, and V substances, however, Schedule II substances can only be partially filled in long term care settings, for terminally ill patients, or when the full prescription cannot be supplied. While these regulations do not prohibit partially filling prescriptions for Schedule II substances in other situations, the DEA has acknowledged that the regulations may need to be amended to provide clarity as to when partial fill of Schedule II substances is allowable. The Reducing Unused Medications Act of 2015 was introduced in the House by Representatives Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Steve Stivers (R- OH) to do just that--provide additional clarity regarding when Schedule II prescriptions may be partially filled under the Controlled Substances Act. In addition to the circumstances outlined in current DEA regulations, H.R. 4599 would also allow partial fill of Schedule II substances if requested by a doctor or patient, as long as the prescription is written and dispensed according to federal and state law. It further makes clear that remaining portions of a partially filled prescription for a Schedule II substance may not be filled later than 30 days after the date the prescription is written. Partial fills would also be allowed in emergency situations, with the remaining portion to be filled not later than 72 hours after the prescription is issued. This legislation does not impact the ability of Schedule III, IV, or V prescriptions to be partially filled. H.R. 4599 is the result of careful compromise among the authors of this legislation, the stakeholders, and our Committee members, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to voice my support for H.R. 4976, which would complement the efforts taken by the Food and Drug Administration to combat the opioid abuse crisis. The opioid epidemic has hit nearly all communities across the country--young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural. The Energy and Commerce Committee has held a number of hearings on this issue, inviting a wide range of stakeholders to come and share with us their suggestions on how Congress can help to address this crisis. What has been made clear is that there is not one solution. It will take the collaboration and expertise of a variety of agencies, and it must not only appropriately account for the need for access to opioids for those with acute and chronic pain, but it must also discourage misuse and diversion. As the public health agency responsible for reviewing pain medications for safety and efficacy, the Food and Drug Administration should play a critical role in making clear how prescription opioids can be safely used, in encouraging the development of technologies to prevent abuse, and identifying what education would assist prescribers who treat patients with opioids. In February, FDA outlined an action plan that included a number of steps focused on the agency's regulatory approach to opioids. These actions included: reassessing the risk-benefit approval framework for opioid use; convening an expert advisory committee before approving any new drug application for an opioid that does not have abuse-deterrent properties; consulting with the Pediatric Advisory Committee regarding recommendations for pediatric opioid labeling before any new labeling is approved; updating the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or REMS program for extended-release and long- acting opioids regarding prescriber training; developing changes to immediate-release opioid labeling to include additional warnings and safety information; reviewing options to make naloxone more accessible, such as availability over-the-counter; and strengthening post-market requirements, among other steps. I was pleased by the agency's announcement as I believe it was an important step forward in improving regulatory oversight of opioids, and would help to take another step towards addressing the opioid crisis holistically. H.R. 4976, the Opioid Review Modernization Act, was introduced by Representatives Sean Patrick Maloney and Leonard Lance to build on the actions announced by the FDA. The legislation would require the agency to work closely with expert advisory committees before making critical product approval and labeling decisions, make recommendations regarding education programs for prescribers of extended-release and long-acting opioids, and would encourage the development and approval of generic opioids with abuse-deterrent properties. These actions will be critical to improving the way we regulate opioids to ensure that these products are used safely and appropriately and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2512, which would add Zika to the list of qualified tropical diseases under the Food and Drug Administration's Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher Program. While I know that we would all agree that there is desperate need for a treatment for Zika, I do not believe that this legislation offers the solution that will help us to achieve that goal. Further, I am disappointed that this legislation has not had the benefit of any legislative action in our Committee where Members could discuss in greater detail the need for reforms to the currently flawed priority review voucher program. In 2007, Congress established the Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher Program at FDA to incentivize treatments for neglected tropical diseases for which there was no market incentives to develop. Sponsors that develop a treatment for a qualified tropical disease are awarded a priority review voucher and have the option of retaining this voucher for a shortened review of another product in their development pipeline, or can sell the voucher to another company to use. Since enactment, three vouchers have been awarded under this program, two of which sold for $67 million and $125 million respectively. The value of the vouchers to sponsors has led to the development of the priority review voucher as a financial incentive in other areas, such as rare pediatric diseases. However, this program is not without flaws. Use of priority review vouchers is not limited to additional tropical disease products, meaning that companies can use this voucher for a review in six months of any product of its choosing. This can result in new drug applications receiving priority review that would not otherwise qualify if they do not treat a serious disease or condition, or offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. In practice, this allows companies to ``purchase'' services from the agency at the expense of other important public health work, undermining FDA's mission and the morale of the agency's review staff. It also creates additional workload for the FDA by requiring a shortened review of applications for treatments that will be used in millions of patients and diverting review staff from other work. Finally, the additional priority review voucher fee associated with use of the voucher has not been effective in covering the full cost of the expedited review. In addition to effects on FDA, the current tropical disease priority review voucher program contains two additional flaws--eligibility for this program is not limited to novel therapies, nor are sponsors required to make the qualifying therapy available or accessible for those who are most in need. Two of the three priority review vouchers awarded under this program were awarded to therapies that were already in use in other countries prior to the program's establishment. Thus a voucher was awarded to sponsors without any new investment in tropical disease treatments. Similarly, patients and other organizations still struggle to access two of the three therapies awarded a priority review voucher either due to affordability or lack of availability. An award such as a priority review voucher should only be given to companies who are committed to making their therapy available to patients in disease- endemic countries for which the program is intended to help. As we consider the bill before us today, it is important to note that FDA has the authority to add Zika to the tropical diseases program administratively if there is no significant market in developed nations for that disease and the disease disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations. I will submit a letter from FDA noting that it is ``extremely unlikely that the Zika virus meets the criteria set out in the statute'' as there is a significant market for medical products for Zika virus currently. According to the agency, expanding the program to include Zika, which would be ineligible, would weaken the effectiveness of the priority review program and would create an undue burden on FDA. Mr. Speaker, it is for all of these reasons that I am opposing S. 2512 today. It is clear there are significant issues with the tropical disease priority review voucher program that should have been discussed and considered as a part of the Committee process. Unfortunately, we were not afforded that opportunity. If the goal of the House is to address the Zika crisis, we should not be expanding a flawed program that will provide incentives for which there is no need. Instead Congress should be working together, including with the Administration, to fully fund a comprehensive response to Zika. I submit the following letter: Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, February 29, 2016. Dear Member: Thank you for your letter of February 05, 2016, urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) to add Zika virus to the list of qualified tropical diseases under the Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher (PRV) Program by issuing an order, as authorized by the Adding Ebola to the FDA Priority Review Program Act [PL 113- 233]. FDA is actively working on many fronts to help mitigate the Zika virus outbreak. The Agency's primary areas of activity include: (1) protecting the safety of the nation's blood supply and ensuring the safety of cell and tissue products; (2) facilitating the development and availability of blood donor screening and medical diagnostic tests for identification of the presence of, or prior exposure to, Zika virus; (3) supporting the development of investigational vaccines and therapeutics; (4) reviewing proposals for the use of innovative strategies to help suppress the population of virus-carrying mosquitoes; (5) protecting the public from fraudulent products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure Zika virus disease. Specific activities include issuing guidance to blood collection centers on safeguards to prevent transfusion transmission of Zika virus in areas of the U.S. and its territories with active mosquito borne transmission (currently Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Marshall Islands), and in unaffected areas where the virus might be introduced by persons returning from affected areas. FDA is also developing guidance that will address appropriate donor screening for human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products: concerns in this area have been highlighted by reported possible sexual transmission of the Zika virus. FDA is reaching out to potential commercial product manufacturers to encourage them to develop and submit applications for emergency use of diagnostic tests for the Zika virus. In addition, FDA is actively engaged with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to advance the development of diagnostic tests, vaccines, therapeutics, and donor screening and pathogen-reduction technologies for blood products to help mitigate this outbreak. These efforts have already realized a major success. On February 26, 2016, under its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority, FDA authorized the use of a Zika virus diagnostic test--developed by CDC-- for the qualitative detection of Zika virus-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies by qualified laboratories. This diagnostic test can help expand domestic readiness for Zika virus by enabling the identification of patients recently infected with Zika virus in support of response efforts. As you are aware, under section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to add infectious diseases to the list of tropical diseases that would qualify the developer of a licensed or approved product to prevent or treat an identified tropical disease to receive a PRV under FDA's Tropical Disease PRV Program, if: (1) there is no significant market in developed nations for that disease; and (2) the disease disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations. This authority is delegated to FDA. FDA has provided a process for requesting that additional diseases be added to the PRV list through the submission of a request to a special docket set up to facilitate the consideration of such requests, accompanied by information to document that the disease meets the statutory criteria required to be added to the PRV list. While FDA has not received a request to add the Zika virus to the PRV list via the docket, the Agency does not want to foreclose anyone from following that process and will evaluate any submissions that are made with respect to the Zika virus. FDA wants to make it clear, however, that--based on the information currently available to FDA--it is extremely unlikely that the Zika virus meets the criteria set out in the statute. While it appears likely that the Zika virus disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations, it also appears that there is a significant market for the Zika virus medical products in developed nations, which would render the Zika virus ineligible for addition to the PRV list under the statute at this time. FDA agrees that we need to do all that we can to facilitate the development of and access to medical products as quickly as possible to respond to the Zika virus outbreak. We fully believe that the incentives currently available for the Zika product development--such as funding for research and development, and clinical trial costs from government and non-governmental organizations--as well as extensive HHS technical assistance for product developers, are sufficient to help bring Zika products to market. FDA is fully prepared to use its authorities to the fullest extent appropriate-- including proven mechanisms to speed the availability of medical products for serious diseases--to help facilitate the development and availability of products with the potential to mitigate this outbreak as quickly as the science will allow. However, expanding the PRV program by adding diseases or conditions that do not meet the criteria for inclusion is unnecessary, weakens the effectiveness of the PRV program, and creates an undue burden on FDA that can ultimately harm public health. As you are aware, the Administration has asked Congress for approximately $1.9 billion in emergency funding to enhance our ongoing efforts to prepare for and respond to the Zika virus, both domestically and internationally. Approving this funding request, which includes support for medical product development and procurement, is essential for sustaining HHS's effort to effectively incentivize the development and availability of medical products for the Zika virus. Thank you, again, for contacting us concerning this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. The same letter has been sent to your cosigners. Sincerely, Dayle Cristinzio, Acting Associate Commissioner for Legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Middlesex and Somerset Counties AFL-CIO Labor Council as its members gather for the 33rd annual Awards and Scholarship Brunch on April 24, 2016. I would also like to congratulate Kevin McCabe and Vincent M. Lane on their recognition by the Council as the Hubert H. Humphrey Friend of Labor Award recipient and the Labor Person of the Year recipient, respectively. The Middlesex and Somerset Counties AFL-CIO Labor Council, based in Sayreville, New Jersey, represents workers in Middlesex and Somerset Counties. The Council supports and advocates for unions and their members in an effort to advance and protect the standards, rights and benefits of New Jersey's labor force. Kevin McCabe and Vincent Lane, truly embody the spirit of the Hubert H. Humphrey Friend of Labor Award and the Middlesex and Somerset Counties AFL-CIO Labor Council Labor Person of the Year. As President of the Carpenter Contractor Trust of New York & New Jersey and former Commissioner for the New Jersey State Department of Labor, Chairman McCabe is a dedicated partner in labor and continues to serve New Jersey's workforce. Mr. Lane is a hardworking labor leader, currently serving as its Business Manager and Secretary-Treasurer of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 711. I would also like to join with the Council in commemorating Workers Memorial Day. Workers Memorial Day is an important observance, highlighting the risks men and women face on the job and the need to continue our efforts to advance safe work conditions. I commend the Middlesex and Somerset Counties AFL-CIO Labor Council for remembering those individuals who have been injured or who have lost their lives in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in recognizing the Middlesex and Somerset Counties AFL-CIO Labor Council and congratulating Kevin McCabe and Vincent Lane. Their efforts to ensure equal rights and opportunities for workers is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from California, the ranking member of our subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a deceptively simple bill, H.R. 2666. The bill states that the FCC may not regulate rates for broadband Internet access service, but I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and misinformation. Just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow in scope. It is designed to gut the FCC because, as experts have pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean almost anything. While the Republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast sections of the Communications Act. Most notably, this bill could undermine the FCC's ability to protect consumers. Democrats repeatedly offered help to improve this bill. But make no mistake, there was not a negotiation. We offered suggestions, but were rebuffed time and again. In fact, we raised concerns from the beginning that the original bill failed to define rate regulation. Then, at the eleventh hour, the Republicans provided their own take- it-or-leave-it definition with no Democratic input. This is not negotiating. The result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate regulation that simply confirms our worst fears. The definition is so broad that it effectively would gut the agency. Now, we have said repeatedly that we do not want the FCC to set rates. But we can't support a bill that undermines the FCC's core mission. We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting in the interest of the public. We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting consumers from discriminatory practices, and we certainly cannot support a bill that undercuts the FCC's net neutrality rules. The Republicans rebuffed all of our efforts to narrow H.R. 2666 so that consumers are not harmed. If we are at all serious about passing a narrow bill, then accomplishing these goals would not be that hard. Our collective interests should be aligned. But that clearly is not the intent of my Republican colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to cast a vote against H.R. 2666.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), my colleague.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to some of the Republican claims regarding the MATS rule. The Energy and Commerce Committee held a legislative hearing on the SENSE Act on February 3 of this year. At that hearing, we heard testimony regarding the ability of waste coal units to meet the requirements of the MATS rule. As Mr. Walke testified, when waste coal plants owners filed lawsuits challenging the MATS rule, claiming it was ``virtually impossible to meet the acid gas and sulfur dioxide limits,'' the court had little trouble rejecting these arguments unanimously. The judge pointed to the evidence and data submitted to EPA showing that many of the waste coal units could already meet the rule's acid gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard. The court also noted that some of these already-compliant plants are among the best performers in reducing hydrogen chloride emissions among all coal-burning power plants around the country. If the majority, along with the bill's proponents, are trying to say that the bill is needed because all of the currently operating waste coal units can't meet the MATS standards, that is not how the Clean Air Act works. The Clean Air Act's use of maximum achievable control technology for setting air pollution standards takes a reasonable approach. It says that EPA should set emission limits based on the emission levels already being achieved by similar facilities in the real world. For existing sources, EPA bases the emission standards for each pollutant on the average emissions achieved by the best performing 12 percent of facilities. Congress, in setting up its program, did not want to merely maintain the status quo. They wanted all facilities within an industrial sector to make the necessary upgrades to reduce their emissions in line with the best performing units. The advocates of this bill claim that coal refuse facilities should be treated differently from other coal fuel-generation facilities and that the technology and fuel used would prevent these facilities from meeting the MATS standards for acid gases and sulfur dioxide, but that is simply not true. First, under the MATS rule, facilities have a choice of meeting either the acid gas standard or the sulfur dioxide standard. They don't have to meet both. But, second, there is emission control technology available today that can bring these waste coal facilities into compliance with the rule. I see no justification for allowing these facilities to emit more pollutants than other similar facilities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3797. Once again, this House is using valuable time to consider a bill that has no chance of becoming law. H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or the SENSE Act, is an unnecessary bill that undermines public health and the environment. Unfortunately, this is no surprise. Throughout this Congress and the previous one, House Republicans have brought many bills to the floor that undermine the Clean Air Act, which also undermines public health and environmental protection. But this bill deserves special recognition because it also undermines States' authorities and picks winners and losers in the emission reduction effort. H.R. 3797 denies a State's right to decide which tradeoffs to make in allocating emission credits among different facilities in its jurisdiction. It allows waste coal-burning facilities to generate more pollution, forcing other facilities, including traditional coal-fired utilities, to find greater emission reductions. The legislation undermines two important public health rules issued under the Clean Air Act. The first is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, or CSAPR, and the second is the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, rule. These rules will help reduce toxic air emissions, including sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and mercury, which makes the air cleaner and safer to breathe for all of us. CSAPR uses an emissions trading mechanism to incentivize utilities and other facilities to reduce harmful air pollutants. These market- based mechanisms have been very successful at reducing pollution at the lowest cost. Facilities that become cleaner, either by becoming more efficient, installing pollution control equipment, or by switching to another fuel, generate valuable pollution credits, and they can use these credits or sell them to other facilities. Unfortunately, this legislation undermines the proven market mechanism used in CSAPR. If the SENSE Act were to become law, there would be far less incentive to reduce pollution because the bill effectively reduces the value of making emission control investments. With respect to the second rule, the MATS rule, the bill's advocates claim that waste coal plants deserve special consideration due to the nature of the fuel that they burn. They argue that these plants are being used to clean up waste coal piles, the coal refuse and other materials that were left over from past coal mining operations. This waste causes land and water pollution problems in many former coal mining areas. While there may be benefits to burning waste coal to generate electricity, it can and should be done in a manner that avoids undue air pollution. Otherwise, the problems that now exist on land and in the water will simply be transferred to the air and spread out over a larger area. Mercury, in particular, is a highly toxic substance that does not break down. It is associated with serious health impacts, including neurotoxicity and cancer. The operators of waste coal facilities asked EPA to consider their facilities separately from other coal plants, but EPA found these facilities are able to comply with these rules and there is no justification for treating waste coal facilities differently from other coal-fired generation facilities--and the courts agreed. These are coal-burning utilities, and they can use existing pollution control technologies to reduce their emissions. So, Mr. Chairman, under the conditions of CSAPR, States have the authority to design their own emission allocation. Today, a State can allow waste coal facilities to emit higher levels of pollution and impose stricter pollution limits on other facilities if they choose to do so, but this legislation eliminates the State's flexibility and imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on the States. This legislation is essentially coming to the floor to benefit fewer than 20 facilities that exist in a handful of States, with most of the facilities located in Pennsylvania. The States already have the ability to provide waste coal facilities with additional emission credits or other assistance if they choose to do so. So the SENSE Act creates more problems than it solves. It is unnecessary. It undermines the incentive to produce cleaner air, which is essential to improving public health and the environment, and it undermines State authority. The White House strongly opposes the bill and has issued a veto threat saying that it would threaten the health of Americans. I agree, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. The underlying bill is another unnecessary special interest bill that undermines Clean Air Act regulations. The bill, if it were to reach the President's desk, will be vetoed. We should be using our time to move forward with the many other issues that need to be addressed in this Congress. Our water infrastructure is in dire need of repair and maintenance. We have Superfund and brownfield sites that need to be cleaned up and returned to productive use. States need support for modernizing and hardening the electricity grid, and there are still many Americans who are unemployed or underpaid for the work that they are doing. All of these things, especially the infrastructure issues, must be addressed by Congress. They impact every person, every State, and every industry in the country. Instead of wasting time on bills like the SENSE Act, we should get to work on these important issues that will support economic growth and job creation throughout the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing that identified numerous flaws in the SENSE Act, and this amendment is designed to correct two of them. If the SENSE Act were to become law, waste coal facilities would be able to emit more than their fair share of pollution under the Cross- State Air Pollution Rule, known as CSAPR. Specifically, section 2(b) of the SENSE Act would reserve emission credits for waste coal plants, thereby prohibiting them from being traded under the CSAPR trading system. According to Janet McCabe, the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, this would remove the economic incentives to reduce emissions and ultimately increase the cost of compliance. Section 2(b) would also interfere with the State's right to determine how to best comply with the rule, instead putting those decisions in the hands of the EPA Administrator. Not only are these changes harmful, but they are also unnecessary because the State that wishes to give a break to waste coal units can already do so under the rule. So this bill, as written, would take longstanding State authority, transfer it to the Federal Government, and then use that authority to pick winners and losers; and it does all of this while increasing the cost of compliance. This amendment would allow a State to opt out of section 2(b) of the SENSE Act if it determines that implementation of the subsection would increase the State's overall compliance cost. I urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the CSAPR rule and support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.