Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains on both sides?

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have heard my Republican colleagues say over and over again that the President's Clean Power Plan won't have any impact on air quality and that it won't do anything to improve the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rule that we are discussing in this joint resolution and that the joint resolution would seek to disapprove establishes State-by-State targets for lowering carbon emissions. When it is implemented, the rule will reduce emissions from the power sector by 32 percent over the next 15 years as compared to emissions in 2005. The final rule has public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, and this includes thousands of fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year--emphasizing again, thousands of fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year. I keep hearing from my GOP colleagues about the costs. What are the costs to society of air pollution and of people suffering from asthma and of premature deaths and of hospitalizations and of all of the costs? None of these things are calculated by the Republicans in their speeches. They just assume that somehow none of this matters. Some of my Democratic colleagues have said over and over again that this is sort of a wasted debate because we know that the President has said he is going to veto the bill and that there wouldn't be enough votes in the House or in the Senate to overcome the President's veto. The theme that you are getting from the Republicans is somehow a clean environment and a good economy don't go together. In fact, the opposite is true. The fact of the matter is that, ever since the Clean Air Act was implemented years ago, we have seen reductions in air pollution. We have seen people's lives saved. We have seen fewer people suffer from asthma attacks and the other consequences of pollution. At the same time, the economy has improved. In the Statement of Administration Policy, in which the President says that he will veto this resolution, he specifically says that, since it was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, each time with strong bipartisan support, the Clean Air Act has improved the Nation's air quality and has protected public health. Over that same period of time, the economy has tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have decreased by more than 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protections go hand in hand. I just keep hearing these negative comments from the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is, when you reduce air pollution, you eliminate the consequences of people having bad health, of dying, of getting sick. At the same time, the economy has improved because we have come up with alternatives to the awful pollution that has resulted which this Clean Power Plan is designed to thwart. Again, I keep hearing my colleagues saying all of these things, but the fact of the matter is you can have clean air, you can have a good environment, and you can have a good economy and grow jobs. That is exactly what this rule that the President has put forward is designed to achieve. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I just want to comment on two issues that keep coming up on the Republican side. One is this notion, which I think the GOP Whip Scalise talked about, of the President's war on coal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that the transition away from coal is contributing to job losses in the coal industry, but setting aside these rules will not alter this trend. There are too many other changes occurring in the power sector that are impacting these workers. Technologies--including distributed generation, smart grid, energy storage, energy efficiency, microgrids, and combined heat and power systems--are maturing and being incorporated at a faster pace. In some areas, they call into question the old grid model that was dominated by large, centralized generation. Concern for these displaced energy workers should be motivating us to do something to help these people and their communities to transition to other good-paying jobs in new industries. Setting aside this rule is not going to replace the job security that they had in the past. Instead of wasting time trying to hold back progress and ignore climate change, we should be working together to address this challenge. This rule moves us forward, and it represents our Nation's commitment to addressing a serious global problem that we helped to create. I constantly hear this about job losses. The fact is that job losses are occurring regardless of anything that the Clean Power Plan would do. Instead of saying job losses, the Republicans should be thinking about ways of trying to help these workers. The other thing I would mention is I kept hearing from the other side this whole notion that electricity rates, prices, and bills are going to go up. I include in the Record a letter from Public Citizen and a number of other consumers groups. Public Citizen--Center for Accessible Technology-- Citizens Action Coalition--Citizens Coalition-- Consumers Union--Energy Coordinating Agency of Philadelphia--Friendship Foundation--Greenlining Institute--Low-Income Energy Affordability Network-- National Consumer Law Center--NW Energy Coalition-- Nuclear Information and Resource Service--Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy--Public Utility Law Project of New York--TURN The Utility Reform Network--Vermont Energy Investment Corporation--Virginia Citizens Consumer Council--WA State Community Action Partnership--A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H), November 24, 2015. RE: Consumer Groups Oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24. Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24. These resolutions would effectively repeal the EPA Clean Power Plan, which curbs carbon pollution from power plants. Opponents of the Clean Power Plan often argue that they are protecting consumers, but they are mistaken. The Clean Power Plan is good for consumers because it will mitigate climate change and can lower household electricity costs. The Clean Power Plan will benefit consumers. Climate change poses a severe threat to American consumers and in particular to vulnerable populations. A few of the most salient risks include: higher taxes and market prices to cover the costs of widespread damage to property and infrastructure from extreme weather; diminished quality and higher prices for food and water, heightening food insecurity for America's most vulnerable populations; and increased illness and disease from extreme heat events, reduced air quality, increased food-borne, water-borne, and insect-borne pathogens. By curbing carbon pollution, the Clean Power Plan will benefit consumers by mitigating these harms. The Clean Power Plan should lower consumer electricity bills. The Clean Power Plan is likely to lower consumer costs, not raise them, because it will spur improvements in energy efficiency. Although electricity prices may rise modestly under the Plan, consumers will use less electricity. This should result in lower bills overall. The EPA projects that the rule will lower consumer bills by 7.0 to 7.7 percent by 2030. A Public Citizen analysis of the proposed rule found that the EPA's projection of bill reductions was conservative because it overestimated the cost of efficiency programs and underestimated how much progress the states can make on efficiency. These points remain valid with respect to the final rule, for which the EPA's analysis is similar. Consumer costs are likely to decline by more than the agency projects. We strongly encourage members to support the Clean Power Plan and to oppose the resolutions disapproving it. Thank you for considering our views, and please feel free to contact David Arkush for further information at darkush@citizen.org or (202) 454-5132. Sincerely, David Arkush, Managing Director; Public Citizen's Climate Program; Dmitri Belser, Executive Director; Center for Accessible Technology; Kerwin Olson, Executive Director; Citizens Action Coalition; Joseph Patrick Meissner, Legal Counsel; Citizens Coalition; Friendship Foundation; Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Policy Counsel, Energy and Environment; Consumers Union; Liz Robinson, Executive Director; Energy Coordinating Agency of Philadelphia; Stephanie Chen, Energy and Telecommunications Policy Director; The Greenlining Institute; Elliott Jacobson, Chair; Low-Income Energy Affordability Network; Charlie Harak, Attorney; National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients; Michael Mariotte, President; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Wendy Gerlitz, Policy Director; NW Energy Coalition; David C. Rinebolt, Executive Director and Counsel; Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy; Richard A. Berkley, Esq., Executive Director; Public Utility Law Project of New York; Mark W. Toney, Ph.D., Executive Director; TURN--The Utility Reform Network; Beth Sachs, Founder; Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; Irene E. Leech, President; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Merritt Mount, Executive Director; WA State Community Action Partnership; Michael Karp, President & CEO; A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H).

Mr. PALLONE. I would like to just read some sections from the letter. The letter is from Public Citizen and a number of other consumers groups. They say in the letter that ``the Clean Power Plan will benefit consumers. Climate change poses a severe threat to American consumers and in particular to vulnerable populations . . . The Clean Power Plan should lower consumer electricity bills. The Clean Power Plan is likely to lower consumer costs, not raise them, because it will spur improvements in energy efficiency. Although electricity prices may rise modestly under the Plan, consumers will use less electricity. This should result in lower bills overall. The EPA projects that the rule will lower consumer bills by 7.0 to 7.7 percent by 2030. A Public Citizen analysis of the proposed rule found that the EPA's projection of bill reductions was conservative because it overestimated the cost of efficiency programs and underestimated how much progress the states can make on efficiency. These points remain valid with respect to the final rule, for which the EPA's analysis is similar. Consumers costs are likely to decline by more than the agency projects.'' Again, we keep hearing from the other side of the aisle, oh, electricity bills are going to go up. They are not. They are going to go down. We keep hearing we are going to lose jobs. Well, a lot of those jobs are going to be lost anyway because of the change in the types of generation of electricity. We should be thinking of ways to try to deal with that rather than saying that somehow we are going to stop it, because we are not going to be able to. I also want to say that I heard the national security argument. We had, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, a minority hearing a couple of months ago at Annapolis. One of the reasons we went there is we know that our military is seriously concerned about the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. When we were there, the superintendent of the Naval Academy was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that were being spent just at Annapolis to deal with sea level rise at the academy and went on to talk about the impact of climate change on naval operations and so many other things. Again, I don't want to emphasize the impact on our national security, but it is there. To suggest that somehow there is no impact is simply not true. Climate change is very much in the minds of the admirals and the generals at the Pentagon. They are very worried about the impact and what it is going to mean in terms of our national security and what we have to do to address those concerns over the next few years. The main thing I wanted to stress, Mr. Speaker, if I could, is that this rule that the Republicans are trying to get rid of provides States with a lot of flexibility to find the best path forward to meet their emission reduction goals. In fact, many States are already implementing policies that are consistent with these regulations. The fact of the matter is that the EPA spent several years talking to States, talking to stakeholders, and talking to consumers. They have not put together some kind of straightjacket here that says that the States have to implement these reductions in carbon emissions in a certain way. They are giving States a tremendous amount of flexibility. They had a lot of public hearings. They had millions of people who commented on the rule. Somehow, when you listen to my colleagues here today, they suggest that this rule came out of nowhere without considering all of the economic impacts, without considering the costs. None of that is true. In fact, there were a lot of discussions about the costs and about the economic impact. The bottom line is that there is every reason to believe that this rule will improve the public health, will improve the lives of Americans in terms of the negative impact that air pollution has on their health, and, in the long run, will improve the economy and lower costs for the consumer. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I listened to the previous speaker. House Republicans keep telling us that greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States. The previous speaker suggested that the United States doesn't need to do much more about climate change. That couldn't be more wrong. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008 and 2009 during the economic recession. Since that time, our overall emissions have grown. Cumulatively, U.S. emissions grew, not fell, in 2012 and 2013, the two most recent years for which data is available. What matters really is whether U.S. emissions are on track to decline in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous climate change. Scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. The EPA already predicts that, without any new policies to control carbon pollution, policies like the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. will only see a 2 percent drop in CO2 emissions by 2040 compared to 2005 levels. So this data highlights the importance of the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration's overall push to cut greenhouse gas emissions. To suggest the United States doesn't need to do any more, that is just not the case. We need to do a lot more, and that is what the Clean Power Plan is designed to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This energy bill does nothing for solar, wind, or any other clean energy technology. It does nothing for energy infrastructure either since all funding in the bill was stripped by the GOP. The bill contains an energy efficiency title that actually results in more energy consumption. The bill contains provisions that will drive up electricity prices in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic by rigging the markets to prop up old and uneconomical coal and nuclear plants that are losing out in the market to cost-effective natural gas and renewables. It also has provisions to help gas pipeline companies and hydroelectric licenses that will roll over environmental laws--like the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the NEPA--and undermine the rights of consumers, tribes, and States. Of course, the version that will be on the floor will have a couple of bad additions from the Committee on Natural Resources, including the MacArthur ``pipeline through parks'' legislation that would make it easy to run pipelines through Yellowstone, Yosemite, and every other national park. Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible bill that demonstrates that the Republican Party is solely focused on the energy policies of the past and is committed to throwing up barriers to the development of a clean and sustainable energy future. Every Democrat should join us and the Obama administration in opposing the bill's passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just have to say, I listened to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who I respect a great deal. I think he is suggesting that somehow the Republicans on our committee or maybe the leadership in the House do want to address climate change. Every time that I have tried in the committee to bring up the issue of climate change, nothing has happened. We haven't had a hearing. We haven't had a bill. We haven't had any initiative since I have been on the committee, let alone served as the ranking member, in the last year--any initiative--that would address the issue of climate change. So when my colleague from Kentucky says, ``Well, we are not denying that this exists. We just don't think it is a priority,'' well, it is not only not a priority. It is not something we have addressed at all in any way anytime the Democrats or myself have tried to raise this issue. To suggest that it shouldn't be a priority--and maybe that is not what he is saying, but it sounded that way--well, I come from a district where we had Hurricane Sandy that devastated our district. We have droughts in California--we were just discussing it with my California colleagues who will be speaking soon--and all kinds of weather extremes that are causing all kinds of problems--loss of jobs, destruction around the country that has to be made up for later by FEMA and other Federal agencies that come in and spend billions of dollars to try to correct these problems. To suggest that this is not a priority I think is wrong. To suggest that somehow maybe the Republicans are dealing with it is simply not the case. Again, I know you don't particularly like the President's power plan, but at least he is trying to do something. I don't see the GOP addressing this at all. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending and expanding the Improving Access to Emergency Psychiatric Care Act, which has already passed the Senate and for which identical legislation, H.R. 3681 has been introduced in the House with bipartisan support. This legislation would extend, and expand if appropriate, the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Demonstration that was created by the Affordable Care Act. While I will not oppose this legislation based on process, I must mention that I am not pleased that this legislation did not go through regular order here in the House as it should have, and as it did in the Senate. I also do not support a change made to require the $100,000 in administrative costs in the bill to come out of unobligated funds at CMS. To delay this legislation, slow it down even further and force the Senate to reconsider the bill for a one word change and an amount of money that is less than the annual salary of any Member of Congress is a waste of time. However, despite these reservations, I support this legislation moving forward. Since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965, so-called ``Institutions of Mental Disease'', or IMDs, have been prohibited by statute from receiving federal Medicaid matching funds for inpatient treatment provided to adults ages 21 to 64. This prohibition was rooted in the desirability of community-based care as an alternative to mass institutionalization of the mentally ill, often in horrific conditions. However, as our healthcare system has grown and changed, there has been increasing concern about the perverse incentives created by the wholesale exclusion of IMDs from treatment for Medicaid beneficiaries; for instance, frequent boarding of psychiatric patients in emergency rooms and non-psychiatric beds of general hospitals has been reported to occur when specialized inpatient psychiatric beds are not available. The days of mass institutionalization are over and we can never go back to those days--at the same time, so-called ``boarding'' of the seriously mentally ill in general hospitals, because the beds simply aren't available, is not an acceptable alternative. Those Medicaid beneficiaries that are seriously mentally ill need the right treatment, at the right time. The demonstration project that we are extending here today allows states to test incorporation of IMD services for Medicaid beneficiaries in a way that insures other community-based services do not suffer. This legislation, which also aligns with CMS's recent proposal to allow for short-term IMD stays in Medicaid managed care plans, is the appropriate way to responsibly address the Medicaid IMD exclusion. We've had immense success with this project thus far, and we can still learn more from it, which is exactly why this demonstration project must be extended and as appropriate, expanded. This legislation will allow the Secretary to do just that, and I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 799--the Protecting Our Infants Act of 2015. This legislation addresses a sad reality of our country's opioid epidemic: prenatal opioid abuse and the steep increase in the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome or NAS. NAS occurs in newborns who were exposed to opiates while in their mother's womb and is associated with negative health outcomes such as preterm births, low birthweight, and respiratory distress. A recent study found the incidence of NAS quadrupled between 2004 and 2013. This legislation would respond to that dramatic increase by requiring HHS to create a comprehensive national strategy to address prenatal opioid abuse and NAS. That strategy would include a coordinated research and programming strategy to address the public health challenge of NAS and prenatal opioid abuse as well as develop a comprehensive set of recommendations for preventing and treating prenatal opioid use disorders and NAS. I want to thank Rep. Katherine Clark for her leadership on this critical and timely issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2583, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015. The FCC has a role in regulating industries that make up one-sixth of our economy and whose services have been essential to consumers, and it is important that the FCC functions in a fast, efficient, and transparent way. The FCC Chairman has made process reform a priority of his tenure, and he has made great strides in improving how the FCC functions. But it is the role of Congress to make adjustments like we are doing today. I believe that the final text of the bill we are considering today will achieve that goal, and I urge all Members to support it. Not all of the issues in the FCC Process Reform Act are new. In fact, the base of the bill being considered here today is very similar to the bill that passed the House under suspension by voice vote last Congress. It requires the FCC to adopt procedural rule changes to maximize public participation and to look into other potential process changes, including whether to establish deadlines for application processing. It also includes the provisions of the FCC Collaboration Act, an issue championed by Representative Eshoo, which will allow commissioners to freely discuss FCC issues with sufficient safeguards to protect against abuse. Democrats offered additional suggestions earlier this year when the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology considered this and other bills aimed at FCC process reform. The ideas of subcommittee members Clarke, Loebsack, and Matsui furthered our goal to help make the FCC fast, efficient, and transparent. The simple suggestions were to, one, require the FCC to provide quarterly reports on pending items with the agency to ensure accountability and timely responses; two, require, the FCC to coordinate with the Small Business Administration to improve small- business participation in FCC proceedings; and, third, require the FCC Chairman to publicly post the agency's internal policies and procedures for greater transparency. Although we could not agree on the policies offered by the Republicans and dissented from the version of the bill that was favorably reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee in June, we worked in a bipartisan manner to craft the language that we take up today. This version of the bill takes the bipartisan language from last Congress and includes most of the Democratic suggestions that improve the bill. I appreciate Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden's willingness to listen to our concerns and work with us to achieve a bipartisan result. It is a stronger bill because of it. I also want to thank Communications and Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo for her leadership on these issues, as well as Representatives Clarke, Loebsack, and Matsui, for their thoughtful considerations. I look forward to continuing to work with our Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate to help this bill become law. Again, I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Autism New Jersey as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. This milestone and the incredible work of Autism New Jersey is truly deserving of this body's recognition. Organized in 1965 out of a need for a support system representing the common interests of concerned parents, Autism New Jersey has continued to evolve over the years to meet the changing scope and needs of the autism community. With an occurrence rate of 1 in 45 in the state of New Jersey, the efforts of Autism of New Jersey are vital to many of the state's families and individuals. Its information services and education and training programs are invaluable resources to individuals, families, professionals and government officials and help raise awareness, understanding, support and compassion of the autism community. Through its public policy activity, Autism New Jersey continues to be a leading voice on autism-related matters across the state and an effective advocate on behalf of the community. I would also like to join with Autism New Jersey in congratulating its 50th Gala honorees, Speaker Emeritus Joseph J. Roberts, Jr., Sandra L. Harris, PhD., Herbert D. Hinkle, Esq., and Nancy Richardson. The actions of each of these honorees have made positive impacts on individuals and caregivers and help advance the mission of Autism New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Autism New Jersey on its 50th anniversary and recognizing the outstanding efforts of the organization and its gala honorees on behalf of the autism community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to just talk, in closing, about the part of this reconciliation that eliminates funding for Planned Parenthood and related agencies. Basically, the reconciliation instructions would prohibit Federal funding under Medicaid as well as under SCHIP--the children's health fund--and social services' block grants to prohibited entities that are defined as those primarily engaged in family planning, reproductive health services, and related medical care, and those that provide abortions beyond limited circumstances. Now, the thing that is most disturbing to me is the ideological bent. We know that the Supreme Court says that abortion is legal and that women have a right to choose; but this goes way beyond even the abortion issue by talking about family planning and reproductive health services. My colleagues continue to say that there are alternatives to Planned Parenthood, but the reality is that there are not because it is the main provider for family planning, reproductive health services, and related medical care. That is our point here. You can try to define this as relating to abortion, but the bottom line is that Planned Parenthood and similar entities provide all kinds of services for women's health and even for some men, and you are denying them access. So I do kind of resent the fact that there is this suggestion that you are going to allow access at community health centers, because I know, from my own experience, that community health centers are limited--there aren't that many--and they don't have the ability to provide these services, particularly this kind of specialty care that women deserve and that women should have. Once again, we are here to defend longstanding freedom of choice protections that ensure that a woman in the Medicaid program can see the qualified provider she trusts. Remember, when you are talking about Medicaid in particular, you are talking about poor women. You are talking about vulnerable women who will lose access to care because Medicaid is their major source of funding if they want to get care. I can never support any legislation of any kind that would leave millions of American women without key preventative health services, including birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, well-woman exams, and advice on family planning. Federal rules protect the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from trusted and medically qualified providers of their choosing. Now you are entering an ideological debate into what we call ``any willing provider.'' The idea was that you could decide as a woman--or as anyone--where to go. If an agency provided the services and if it were qualified, you could choose to go there. Now you are breaking that for ideological reasons. My concern is: Where do we go next? We then say that you can't go to a hospital because it is Catholic or that you can't go to a clinic because it is Jewish. How are you supposed to define, ideologically, which provider you can go to if you now put the ideological bent on it as saying you can't go to a provider that may, at one of its clinics--not even the one you go to--provide abortion services? This is a protection that has existed for a long time, and you are breaking it. This is the wrong bill--wrong because it repeals the Affordable Care Act, wrong because it denies women access to important care. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said, now our vice chair of the committee also is going into all the reasons why we should repeal the Affordable Care Act. So I think maybe at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just read, if I could, from the Statement of Administration Policy. This is the President's statement about why this bill should not pass. He says: ``The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3762. The House now has attempted to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times. By repealing numerous key elements of current law, H.R. 3762 would take away critical benefits and health care coverage from hard-working middle-class families. The bill also would remove policies that are expected to help slow the growth in health care costs and that have improved the quality of care patients receive. H.R. 3762 would increase the deficit in the long term and detract from the work that Congress could be doing to foster job creation and economic growth.'' The Affordable Care Act is working and is fully integrated into an improved American healthcare system. Discrimination based on preexisting conditions is a thing of the past. Under the Affordable Care Act, we have seen the slowest growth in healthcare prices in nearly 50 years benefiting all Americans. Repealing key elements of the Affordable Care Act would result in millions of individuals remaining uninsured or losing the insurance they have today. An estimated 17.6 million Americans gained coverage as several of the Affordable Care Act's coverage provisions have taken effect, 15.3 million since the beginning of the first open enrollment in October 2013. This legislation would roll back coverage gains and would cost millions of hardworking middle class families the security of affordable health coverage they deserve. Repealing the healthcare law would have implications far beyond these Americans who have or will gain insurance. More than 150 million Americans with employer-based insurance would be at risk of higher premiums and lower wages or losing their coverage altogether. Reforms that strengthen Medicare's long-term finances also would be repealed, likely making Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund insolvent earlier. H.R. 3762 also would defund the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe; limit women's health care choices; and disproportionately impact low-income individuals. Rather than refighting old political battles by once again voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class, Members of Congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle class families, and create new jobs. If the President were presented with H.R. 3762, he would veto the bill. This is an exercise in futility, this reconciliation act. To suggest that somehow we should repeal the Affordable Care Act after all the good things that it is doing to help Americans obtain health care, have access to health care, and lower costs, there is absolutely no justification for it. I thought that the Republicans would stop doing this months ago, but here they are at it again. I don't really understand it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. I have no additional speakers. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) be allowed to control the next 10 minutes of debate time as the designee of the ranking member.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, but I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything he said. I am glad that he is admitting that, basically, what this reconciliation tries to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act. There was some question about that by my colleagues until now. But, clearly, they are admitting that that is what they are trying to do. Of course, they don't say anything about the positive impact of the Affordable Care Act and how many more people now have health insurance, how many people don't face discrimination, all the terrible things that existed before the Affordable Care Act became law. What I do not appreciate, though, is my chairman saying that somehow we are trying to expand access to health care by providing more funds to community health centers. The fact of the matter is that the community health centers cannot make up for the work on women's health that Planned Parenthood centers take care of. To suggest that somehow that is going to make up for what Planned Parenthood does is simply not the case. Mr. Speaker, this reconciliation legislation amounts to the futile 61st attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act. It also represents the Republican's continued assault on women's right. The reconciliation instructions defund Planned Parenthood, and the recently enacted legislation forming a new select subcommittee will continue a fraudulent investigation into Planned Parenthood, and I think that is appalling. This investigation and this effort in reconciliation are nothing more than a radical assault on women's health. Extremist Republicans want to take away a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her family as well as her right to choose the healthcare provider that best meets her healthcare needs. This isn't just an attack on Planned Parenthood. This is an attack on all women across the country. I am also disappointed that the reconciliation instructions would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which is part of the Affordable Care Act. There is nothing more important than the Prevention Fund. My colleague, the chairman of our committee, suggested it was a slush fund. Nothing could be further from the truth. Less than 4 months ago the House voted overwhelmingly to support the 21st Century Cures Act, which was one of my chairman's goals, was to pass that bill. With that vote, we all agreed on the importance of making investments to spur innovation to develop new treatment and cures, investments that could reduce the human toll of disease and reduce the financial strain that disease places on public and private healthcare payers. Just like we know that investments in developing new cures and treatments matter, we know that investments and prevention pay off. According to the Trust for America's Health, every dollar spent on community-based interventions generates a return of $5.60. Not only does investing in prevention have economic benefits, such investments can potentially prevent the human suffering that results from disease. I don't see how anyone can be against that goal. I would venture to say again out of respect to the chairman of my committee, if we were to get rid of the Prevention Fund, I don't see any point in having the 21st Century Cures Act because the money is similar. One goes for prevention, and the other goes also for prevention. This legislation is harmful, unnecessary, and will never become law. I urge all Members to reject it. I reserve the balance of my time.