Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida who just spoke said that the Democrats were going to attack this proposal or the pay- for for this proposal by saying that it's an assault on the middle class, and that's exactly what I intend to say. Unless I misunderstood my colleague from Florida, he seemed to suggest that the health care subsidies, that people who are in this $80,000 or $90,000 income bracket was something that they were not entitled to; I suppose because he thinks that somehow they're too rich. Well, let me tell you, if you have a family of four and you're making $80,000 to $90,000 a year or something like that, certainly in my State of New Jersey but in a lot of parts of the country, it's very difficult for you with a family of four to be able to buy health insurance, to pay your premium, without some help. And that's exactly what we're talking about when we talk about people who are middle class. People who are middle class could be making $25,000 a year, $40,000, $50,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year. It's not easy to be able to afford your health premiums if you have a family of four and you're in that income bracket. I regret what's happening here today, because the bottom line is there was bipartisan agreement on the main goal of repealing this 1099 reporting. Doing away with it is something that the Democrats actually put on the House floor and voted on last session. But what we had during the 111th Congress is a repeal bill that basically was paid for by closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, and we weren't able to get that passed because it was on suspension and only two Republicans joined with us. It was actually endorsed, the pay-for and the bill, by the National Federation of Independent Business, but the Republicans wouldn't support it. There's no question here that we want to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, but we don't want to pay for it on the backs of the middle class. We should pay for it by closing these loopholes for taxes for companies that take jobs overseas so that we can create more jobs here at home. I just can't believe what the Republicans are saying. They have this offset that would essentially eliminate protections for middle class families and cost them about $6,000 or more in payments to the IRS. So the average middle class family is either going to have to pay more to the IRS in order to get some kind of benefit on their premium or just decide to go uninsured. The whole point of the Affordable Care Act was to try to deal with those middle class families that can't afford health insurance. If you're very poor now, you get Medicaid. If you're over 65, you get Medicare. But if you're a working person, you can't afford your health insurance a lot of times because what happens is you have to go and buy it on the individual market because your employer simply doesn't provide it. That's these middle class people that we're trying to help with the Affordable Care Act, those that need a little help so that they can afford their premium. And these are the very ones that you're saying, ``No, it's too bad now. We're not going to help you.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I like the gentleman from Georgia. He's a nice guy. But I have to say that his story about what actually happened here is not exactly accurate. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is when the Democrats were in charge in the last Congress, we did have an omnibus appropriations bill, but it was the Senate Republicans who refused to provide the votes, because, as you know, you need a supermajority in the Senate. Then he talked about how he was glad to be home last week. I was glad to be home last week too, and I got a lot of input, but we should have been working here and not moving up so perilously close to these deadlines where the government could actually shut down. My fear is that we're just going to be kicking the can down the road every 2 weeks, every 2 weeks, facing another possible government shutdown. As the gentleman from Colorado said, that creates economic uncertainty and is not good for the economy. Now, I just wanted to comment on the gentleman from Georgia. I was glad that I finally heard him use the word ``jobs'' and talk about jobs because that's the problem here. This H.R. 1 that he talks about we know is going to destroy jobs--various accounts, 700,000, 800,000 jobs that will be destroyed or will be eliminated, not just because the government isn't paying for the jobs, but because it doesn't invest in the future. If you listened to what President Obama said in his State of the Union address, he said that the government has a role. The gentleman from Georgia says the government should get out of the way. Well, I don't agree with that. We need to make wise investments in our future, in our education programs--which this cuts--in our research and development for the future, in infrastructure so that we can have roads and highways and mass transit so that commerce can continue and we can grow the economy. That is what's wrong with H.R. 1 and this larger bill that the Republicans have put forward. And, of course, the Senate can't take up the bill the way it is because they know it will destroy jobs and cripple the economy. So what I ask of my Republican colleagues is go out there, sit down with the Senate Democrats, sit down with the House Democrats. Don't just say take it or leave this bill that we know has such draconian cuts and doesn't do anything to invest in America's future. We can't continue down this road. We've got to work together.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I rise to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just find it incredible what I am hearing on the other side of the aisle here because we've gone through several weeks now where basically the rules have been changed so that the Budget Committee chairman basically does whatever he pleases and has the authority almost like equal to the rest of the House, the way the Republicans have given him this authority. It's sort of like a one- man dictatorship. So I'm not sure that I am particularly interested in his opinion on this one. But beyond that--and I will follow up on my colleague from New Jersey--when you talk about substantive changes to the law, the whole purpose of this amendment is to basically gut the health care reform and make sure that it never takes place. And if it were to become law, if it were to be adopted, that is exactly what would happen. This has a major substantive impact. And beyond that, what we're highlighting here is the fact that here we have the Republicans saying that they are trying to save money or cut spending when, in reality, what they are doing with this amendment is increasing the deficit and actually making it more difficult to create jobs. I don't see how we could ever argue, frankly, that this amendment is in order. It clearly increases the deficit. It clearly increases the budget authority. It will kill the health care reform, and that's its purpose. So I would ask that the chairman rule that this is certainly out of order.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I would just like to point out, again, the gentlewoman's amendment is just like the others we've heard before. It is going to completely eliminate implementation of the health care reform because the bottom line is that, if this amendment were to pass, then all of the positive things that have already gone into place in terms of eliminating discrimination against preexisting conditions or the other discriminatory practices, like lifetime or annual caps, or the requirement that young people up to the age of 26 be able to get insurance coverage on their parents' policies, all of these things essentially depend on the mandate, because without the mandate, what happens is that insurance companies go back, again, to discriminatory practices. This is nothing more but an effort essentially to eliminate the health care reform. Whether it's defunded, whether it's eliminating the mandate or the other amendments that we're going to see later today because this is a package. And we all know, it's absolutely clear, that without the mandate, it is going to be impossible to carry out the coverage and the implementation of these important provisions that eliminate discrimination.

Mr. PALLONE. How many times are we going to hear about repealing the health care reform instead of having an initiative that actually creates jobs? I go out. The gentleman from Georgia said, Are you listening to your constituents? Yes, I listen to my constituents. They tell us we should address job creation and the economy and not constantly argue over and over again about repealing health care reform, which we know is going absolutely nowhere. So when I listen, that is what I hear: jobs, the economy, not this constant repetition of repeal. Now, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Montana, I have to say, but he talks about completely stopping and defending implementation. Well, the reason that the Republicans are saying that they want to de-fund implementation is because this health care reform is already working. Insurers now can't drop someone's coverage when they get sick; seniors are saving money on prescription drugs; young adults to age 26 are getting back on their parents' insurance; and small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. This is moving along. This is working. That is why they want to stop the implementation, is because they know it is working. Now, the defunding amendments will end all these benefits, putting health insurance companies back in charge of America's health care. The only person who benefits from defunding and repeal are the special interest health insurance companies that want to charge more and continue their discriminatory practices. The gentleman from Montana talked about the cost. Well, the fact of the matter is that if we pass these defunding amendments offered in the guise of budget austerity, they are actually one step closer towards repealing the largest deficit cutter passed in the last decade, and that is the Affordable Care Act. Health care reform helps tremendously in reducing the deficit. It will save $230 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion in the 10 years after that. If we defund health care reform, there will be no prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans with preexisting conditions, no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your coverage when you get sick, no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits, no required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies, no assistance for seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in the doughnut hole, no free annual checkups in Medicare, and no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. Repeal, I stress, is a boon for the insurance companies, but an enormous setback for American families. If we pass this amendment, the insurance companies can raise their rates without review or transparency, they can deny coverage to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions, and they can cut off coverage when someone becomes sick. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on these defunding amendments. Health care reform is working. I go back home and people are pleased with it because already in many cases they are able to get insurance they weren't able to get before. I am tired of hearing this over and over again. Concentrate on jobs and the economy, not this charade.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Beach replenishment is an economic engine for shore towns and for the tourism industry. It ultimately creates jobs. And also it's based on an Army Corps cost-benefit analysis that says for every dollar we spend on beach replenishment we save $2 or $3, depending on the cost-benefit analysis, that doesn't have to get paid by the Federal Government during a hurricane or northeaster or other disaster. So beach replenishment actually saves the Federal Government money. It has to, otherwise the projects are not authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to that, there is no way that local municipalities would be able to afford to do this. Many of them are very small; they have a few thousand people. I use my own State of New Jersey as an example. So you would be cutting off any kind of beach replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm. And ultimately having to pay out those dollars in FEMA down the road makes no sense. This is actually something that will cost the Federal Government money over the long run, and it is very ill-advised for that reason alone.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to follow up on what the gentlewoman from Connecticut said. This is about Whose side are you on? If you're with the gentleman from Georgia, you are on the side of the big insurance companies, and you'll want to make sure that they make bigger profits, that they get bigger bonuses, that they pass out bigger dividends and more money to their CEOs; or if you're against this amendment and you want to go with the health care reform bill that we have, you're with the little guy--with the consumer, with the average American. Right now, the law says that consumers have to receive more value for their premium dollars. Insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvements rather than on the bonuses and the salaries and the dividends for the CEOs and the stockholders. That's what this is all about. You're going to hand back to the insurance companies control over what happens with the money that you paid in your premium so they can do whatever they want with it and make whatever profit they want. I think it's wrong. One of the major issues that we face this year is affordability and what consumers are getting for their buck, so to speak. With health care reform, we made health insurance more affordable, and it will become more so as this kicks in further. At the same time, we wanted to make sure that when you spend your premium you get something back: you get good value, and you get good benefits. That's what we're doing with health care reform. We're not worried about the insurance companies and whether they get enough profit. They make enough profit. I'm going to give you some examples. Let's use Aetna. Between 2009 and 2010, their profits went up 40 percent. I can use that for every one of the insurance companies.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, the question here is whose side are you on? The only people that I talk to who are against the exchanges are the big insurance companies and their representatives, because they are the only ones that stand to gain by keeping the status quo and not having the exchanges. The little guy, the consumer wants the exchange. Why? Because he can get affordable coverage, because he can get a good benefit package, because there is transparency, because he can find out what's being offered and how much it costs him. And the insurance companies don't want any of that because they want to continue with business as usual, keep raising rates. Now, we all know how it works. The large employers, they can go out and get group coverage, but if you are an individual or you are a small business, it's very hard to do that. And that's why we set up the exchanges, because basically it's like a larger insurance pool. And now the small business, the individual can go on the exchange, they can find out what's going on, they can see what the rates are, and there's competition. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, the Republicans always used to be for competition. This is the marketplace. This is capitalism. This is what we are providing here. It's a choice. More choices for the little guy. That's what this is all about. And I for the life of me do not understand again why the Republicans would not want to have the exchanges except for the same reason, they are siding with the big insurance companies. They are not worrying about the consumer and the average American. It's also the fact that we're talking about portability. Right now, if you have a job and you're afraid to go to another job, and maybe a better job, or something that you'd like to do because you are afraid that you're going to lose your health insurance, well, now you don't do that. You can change your jobs. You can do something better. You can improve your life. You can live the American Dream because now you don't have to worry about not being able to find a good, affordable insurance policy. This is another aspect of the exchanges that are really so important. Really, the exchanges are the heart of what we're trying to do, which is cover all Americans, provide access to good insurance coverage for all Americans, and make it at a reasonable cost. That is not the case now, and it will only be the case if these exchanges, as part of the larger health care reform, become law and continue to become law.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry is a crucial part of our Nation's economy, and catch shares pose a serious threat to the vitality of the fishing industry. Catch shares is a system where fishermen have to buy the right to fish, and only those who buy this right are given the opportunity to catch a portion of fish. I don't believe any fisherman should have to buy the right to go fishing. What is perhaps most concerning is NOAA's use of important cooperative research and monitoring funds in a carrot-and-stick operation that pressures regional fisheries management councils to adopt catch share programs. Mr. Jones' amendment would simply prevent NOAA from spending funds to push another restrictive management system before they get the current system right. Despite our calls on NOAA to make programs that gather scientific data and keep fisheries open their priority, NOAA has failed to listen. And that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by Mr. Jones.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I respect Dr. Burgess a great deal, but I have no idea why he would be opposed to having an agency that is essentially putting a check on the insurance companies. The problem is that the insurance companies keep raising rates, they don't show the consumer what the real benefits that they're receiving are, and what we need is more transparency and some way to review these insurance premium rates so that they don't get out of hand. The fact of the matter is that this agency, working with States, has already had great success. In Connecticut, regulators recently rejected a proposed 20 percent rate increase by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. In Maine, the State superintendent rejected WellPoint's Empire Blue Cross request to raise rates by 23 percent. Colorado, also, and in California, the review prompted Anthem Blue Cross to withdraw its request for a 39 percent premium increase. Why are you objecting to us trying to put a check on these insurance companies that keep raising their rates at outrageous levels? That's what this is all about. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. The problem for American consumers is that the insurance company gouges them with high premiums and gives them lousy benefits. So all we've been trying to do with health care reform is make it possible for a consumer to get an affordable policy and to have a decent benefits package. I, for the life of me, don't understand why the Republicans don't want that to happen. Why do they want the consumer not to be able to get affordable insurance or to be able to get decent benefits? People are amazed because they expect that their insurance policy is going to provide physician care, hospital care, emergency care, prescription drugs, and oftentimes it doesn't even provide all these things. So there should be an essential benefit package. If you're a big corporation, you can go out and get a nice benefit package for employees, and you can get an affordable policy. But if you're a small business or you're an individual, you can't do it. So all we're doing is trying to level the playing field so that the little guy can get the good benefit package and get the affordable insurance just like the big corporation. Again, I don't understand why our Republican friends would not want that to happen. And it's just practical. It's just a practical solution here. If you pass this amendment, then we're going to go back to the same thing again where that average American can't get the good policy and can't get affordable insurance. It's not fair. It's an issue of fairness. So oppose this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, next week marks the twenty-third anniversary of the Sumgait massacre. I stand today to recognize the massacres in Sumgait, Azerbaijan, and the continued Turkish and Azeri aggression against the Armenian people. In late February of 1988, during what was supposed to be a period of glasnost and perestroika within the Soviet Union, Armenians, who had been the target of genocide in the early part of the 20th century by the Ottoman government, were under assault by the Azeri authorities in the town of Sumgait in Azerbaijan. This three-day rampage left dozens dead and hundreds injured, many burned alive. Women and minors were abused, scores of apartments were robbed, shops and kiosks were demolished, and thousands of people became refugees. The Sumgait massacre is but one example in a long line of Azerbaijan's aggression and hostility against the Armenian people. Just two years later, the disappearance of a 450,000 strong Armenian community in Azerbaijan was witnessed. While Azerbaijan claims that events in Baku were about the liberation of Azerbaijani people from the Soviet occupation, the truth is that Mikhail Gorbachev had to send Soviet troops to the Azerbaijani capital to stop the mass killings and deportations of Armenians organized by the Government of Azerbaijan. The unfortunate fact is that the Azerbaijani Government was successful in ethnic cleansing and the mass deportation of the entire Armenian population of Baku. Despite the attempt by the Government of Azerbaijan to cover up the crimes of Sumgait and Baku, enough brave witnesses came forward to give an accurate account of the offenses. Having survived near annihilation at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish authorities, it is a testament to the indomitable spirit of the Armenian people that they were able to endure and overcome another genocide campaign during the pogroms that took place throughout Azerbaijan, including in its capital city of Baku. Many Armenians have marked the anniversary of the Sumgait massacre by organizing a march here in Washington from the Embassy of Turkey to the Embassy of Azerbaijan in order to highlight the continued Turkish and Azeri aggression toward the Armenian people. This anniversary reminds us yet again of the historical injustices the Armenian people have faced, and the need for strong U.S. engagement in the region to safeguard Armenia against the aggressive tactics of its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues stand with me in recognizing this tragic moment in history. Through recognizing the atrocities of the past, we can build a more peaceful future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I am just amazed by the extortion that I heard on the other side of the aisle tonight. Basically what the Republicans said is that if Planned Parenthood agreed not to perform abortions, then they could continue to perform their other functions. But if they insist on performing abortions, then we are going to starve them for money and they won't be able to provide contraceptives and family planning and all the other health care services for women that are so important here. To me, that is just an incredible statement, because essentially what you are saying is we will extort this. We don't really care about all these other services that they are providing. What we really care about is abortion. And if you sign on the dotted line, then you can continue to perform the other health care services, as long as you don't perform the service that is allowed under the law of the land. Now, I cannot believe that that was actually stated here this evening, because I know and we all know that all these other services, reproductive services and health care services, are so important for women, so important for families. For me to hear a Member on the other side suggest that somehow they are going to extort that and threaten that and hold that over everyone in order to accomplish this goal of saying you can't perform abortions I think is outrageous. I now understand what the purpose of this amendment is. It is to close down Planned Parenthood and all the good things that many of you admit they are actually doing just in order to accomplish this ideological goal related to abortion. I just think that is incredible. To me, frankly, for the first time I understand what it is all about. But let's not be hypocrites about this. If that is what you are about, then admit it. And one person did. The rest of you are going on and on about all of the terrible things that Planned Parenthood has done. Frankly, most of the men and women who perform the services at Planned Parenthood are very well-meaning people, and they shouldn't be attacked because of a few that haven't done the right thing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, as we continue to work our way out of the recession towards the thriving economy that offers economic opportunity to all Americans, we must out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world; but the House Republican continuing resolution will do none of that. What it accomplishes is nothing but irresponsible slashing of necessary programs just so they can go back home and say that they cut government spending. Now, I'm not sure if our Republican colleagues realize that actions have consequences. House Republicans are going too far, and they're sacrificing Americans' health, safety and future in the process, all in order to protect special interests. And what makes it worse is they are offering no real plan to deal with the deficit or create jobs. Madam Chairman, American competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate and keep America number one. But, instead, this bill holds $2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, representing a significant setback in cancer and other disease research. We have to properly fund the key agencies like NIH that are essential to disseminating medical research and assisting in the development of new drugs and devices. Declining or stagnant Federal funding for research and development has an impact on all sectors of our workforce. And I want to use my home State of New Jersey as an example. A report that was released last year showed that the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries are the leaders in private sector capital construction in New Jersey. In fact, in 2008, that meant $1.4 billion to the State and almost 6,000 jobs for construction alone. In addition, there's a new report, ``Research America,'' that notes that New Jersey is the third largest R&D employer in the United States with more than 211,000 jobs supported by health R&D, including 50,000 direct jobs in health R&D. The same report shows the economic impact in New Jersey is $60 billion. And that's why I believe that we must provide R&D incentives, additional research grants and more technology funding. These investments will provide new jobs, not only in the research sector, but in the construction and maintenance of labs and research facilities. So, Madam Chairman, the government must be responsible for facilitating an environment where Americans can continue to innovate. This is what President Obama talked about in his State of the Union speech. That is the key to creating new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the next generation. If government abandons its role in R&D, we run the real risk of squandering many, many opportunities. Oftentimes, government can support and advance initial research that is then developed by the private sector. Government can plant the seeds, often with modest investments relative to the long-term payoffs in new products, new discoveries, new jobs, and economic growth. Government has limited resources in these tough times, but that doesn't mean we abandon our role. In fact, we have a responsibility to the future to make wise investments that can lead to so many innovative discoveries and so much in economic benefits. Now, last Thursday, Speaker Boehner said, ``Everything's on the table. We're broke. Let's be honest with ourselves.'' But the Pentagon, in this CR, gets 99 percent of what they ask for. Now, defense spending makes up more than half of our discretionary budget. The non-defense discretionary spending in this CR is enduring brutal cuts. Why should defense spending remain so high when all this non-discretionary spending, including R&D, is cut so severely? It simply makes no sense. And I would say, Madam Chairman, really this is all about priorities. The Republicans clearly have the wrong priorities. They're not making investments in the future. They're not creating jobs. They're not creating an environment where people can be educated for new jobs and be trained for new jobs. They simply have the wrong priorities here with their spending cuts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a simple waste of time, and it doesn't address job creation, which must be the number one priority of this Congress. Today, we are literally coming to the floor to spend nearly 10 hours of debate telling the committees of the House to do what they already should be doing. Since January 5, when this Congress was sworn in, we have not voted on one bill that will strengthen our economy or create jobs--not a single one. While we're doing this, the Republican leadership is putting together a spending bill that will cost our economy jobs. The bill makes sweeping cuts in research and development, cuts that will jeopardize America's position as a world leader in innovation. In the State of the Union, the President set the right priorities with his focus on job creation, economic recovery, debt reduction, and economic opportunity for all Americans. I am here with my Democratic colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee where we worked over the last 4 years to keep America at the forefront of the world in clean-energy technologies and quality health care, so I am trying to understand why our committee is down here today, wasting our time, when we could be having hearings to generate new ideas on how to create jobs and strengthen our economy. Republicans simply don't get it. They don't have a clue. Democrats have lots of ideas. Investments in clean energy will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep our environment healthy, but they will also create countless new jobs. I am encouraged by the President's announcement this week that he is going to prioritize offshore wind development in areas off the Atlantic coast, including in my State of New Jersey. This is exactly the type of clean energy America should be investing in, which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and gas and create jobs. That's why I oppose the Republican plan to cut almost $900 million from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that create jobs and move America towards a more self-efficient energy market that doesn't rely on foreign oil from volatile places like the Middle East. Another important issue that we could be discussing in our committee is health science and innovation. The health science industry, which includes pharmaceuticals, medical devices and biotechnology, plays a critical role in our national economy as well as in New Jersey's economy. A recent report by Research America noted that New Jersey is the third largest research and development employer in the U.S., with more than 211,000 jobs supported by health R&D, including 50,000 direct jobs in health R&D. Federal R&D investments are critical for continued economic growth. For example, the National Institutes of Health award many grants to universities, which, in turn, bring money and jobs to States. In 2007, New Jersey received $280 million in research grants from NIH, which helped create and support 3,738 new jobs. We need to continue to make smart, disciplined, forward-looking investments in innovation. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed cutting $1 billion from NIH funding in the spending bill they plan to bring to the floor next week. This is not the solution to keeping America at the forefront of R&D in the world, and it is going to hurt our ability to create high-quality high- tech jobs.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to reference the Republican chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, because he did leave the floor. But he made a couple of statements that I have to comment on. First of all, he said that this Republican initiative is about creating jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. I've watched as the Republicans have been in the majority now for about 3 or 4 weeks, and they're not doing anything to create jobs. And this certainly doesn't create jobs. And then Mr. Dreier said that there can be no corporate contributions under the current law. Well, the Citizens United case clearly says that there are unlimited corporate contributions, and that's the problem. Rather than having public financing of campaigns--which this legislation would eliminate--we're going to have more and more corporations just spending millions and millions of dollars to finance campaigns. And that's what this is all about. This is the Republicans basically catering to special interests and the large corporations who will spend unlimited amounts of corporate money on campaigns, and not having in this case a public financing component through voluntary largely small donations. Now, I have to say this is a system that we have now that's been in place since Watergate. It was a reform that Democrats and Republicans used, a reform of a very bad system that the Watergate scandal showed was not the way we should go. And I agree that the system needs to be updated, but it should be changed to meet the needs of today's elections that are costing more, and more primaries, and the focus should be on small donations, not getting rid of small donations. But what we see instead is the Republican majority eliminating the system altogether and making Presidential campaigns more susceptible to what I call outside influence. We saw the effect of the Citizens United case in the past election, where corporations and special interests poured money to sway the elections in their favor. With disclosure requirements almost nonexistent, we have no way of knowing whether foreign corporations or entities were contributing to the elections. And we have to question whose side the new Republican House majority is on. Unfortunately, it appears that this is just another attempt by the Republicans to support their special interest friends and big corporations who have an unfair and undue influence on our electoral process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. First of all, I wanted to thank my colleague from California for coming down here tonight and many nights and talking about the Make it in America agenda and why manufacturing matters. And the fact of the matter is that manufacturing, there was a recent report out that said that manufacturing, last year for the first time more jobs were created in manufacturing than were lost. And I think that was the first time in 10 years. And we had, as you know, I think you mentioned over a million private sector jobs created in 2010. I don't like to talk about how wonderful everything is, because I know that it's not. I know that unemployment continues to be high, and many of my constituents talk to me all the time about how hard it is to find a job and how difficult it is for them to make ends meet; but the fact of the matter is that we are improving things. And we are beginning to see signs of the recovery; and most importantly, we are actually seeing more manufacturing jobs. So anybody says to me, well, you can't make things in America anymore, I simply say look at the facts. The facts are that manufacturing jobs are on the rise. You know, I wanted to say, I was amazed today because I came down to the floor, we came in, I guess, we had debate around 5:15 and then we voted around 6:30, and I look at the agenda for the week, and we are now into the fourth week of the Republican majority in the House, and to my knowledge not a single thing has been done or has been proposed to be done this week that would actually create jobs or address the economy. In fact, I was listening to the debate on this budget resolution, and one of your colleagues from California, Mr. Dreier, started talking about the deficit and health care, the health care repeal again. You know, for 3 weeks, or at least for 2 weeks, and 1 week of course we had the tragedy with our colleague Gabby Giffords, but for the last 3 weeks all the talk has been about repealing health care reform, which of course is not going to happen because the Senate's never going to take it up and the President is never going to sign it. So it's a complete waste of time. And he was talking again about how that's going to reduce the deficit, the repeal would reduce the deficit. And I got up and I said, well, it's just the opposite. The CBO, which at least has provided us with numbers--your budget resolution that's coming up tomorrow that the Republican have doesn't have any numbers-- but we know that the CBO told us that the health care reform actually reduces the deficit over the next 10 years by $230 and a trillion dollars in the second decade. And I said, you know, what is your plan? What is the Republican plan to reduce the deficit? What is the Republican plan to create jobs? What is the Republican plan to help the economy? And I don't see anything. I mean, all I see is, again, 3 weeks on repealing health care reform, now some budget resolution that has no numbers about, you know, what the budget's actually going to be, and nothing to indicate how it's really going to create jobs or reduce the deficit. And then I saw that on Wednesday we are taking up a resolution which will repeal the Presidential election public financing system, which again is nothing but another corporate giveaway, because what it means is that if we don't have public financing of the Presidential elections, then we are probably going to rely more and more on these corporate ads, these secret corporate ads that were used this last November that we don't even know where the money came from. It's all corporate money. And, again, I don't see anything being done by our Republican colleagues to address the issue of jobs. Now, on the other hand we have the President and you, Mr. Garamendi, talking about this every day. I mean, the President, you know, we sort of got a little prelude to what he is going to do in the State of the Union tomorrow, but the whole focus is going to be on jobs. And we will wait and see, but that's what we are hearing. We are hearing it's going to be about innovation; it's going to be about investment in things like R&D, in transportation infrastructure, in education, a vision for the future that trains Americans for better jobs, that creates the infrastructure, the mass transit, the highways so that our goods can travel around the country, the R&D to put us ahead. You know, in my district a lot of R&D is done in the manufacturing of drugs and new products, medical devices. I mean, this is what the President's talking about. And I assume that my colleague from New York's going to talk about his visit to your district, which was all job oriented. And then when the President, or Premier, of China came, President Obama's whole message to him was you know, you got to let in our exports. You got to lower the barriers so that we can create things here and export them to China because you have to open your markets. So, you know, the President like a laser beam is focusing on jobs. I know the Democrats in the House with the Make it in America agenda are focusing on jobs. I don't think you mentioned it, but I have a paper here that says that this week, Congressman Garamendi, you are going to address two Make it in America bills. Maybe you should talk about that, and Mr. Tonko can talk about the President's visit to his district. But all our focus is on creating jobs, and I don't hear anything from the other side of the aisle, from the Republicans on this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I wanted to just mention briefly, because Mr. Tonko has been talking about GE and the president of GE who is now the head of this new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, I just thought it was interesting. In last Friday's Washington Post, he wrote an opinion piece about how to keep America competitive. The gist of it was not only can we manufacture things here and do things better here, but we have to. In other words, we cannot grow our economy unless we spend a significant amount of resources, primarily in the private sector, but some government as well, in creating and improving the manufacturing sector. It is crucial to the economy. It is not something that we can just ignore. He talked about, and one of the things I try to do is dispel the idea that we can't manufacture things here or that we can't be competitive because it is almost like a defeatist attitude. As a Member of Congress, you have to dispel this myth that it can't be done. He says, and I will read his last section: ``It is possible to become a competitive global enterprise and still care about your home. In fact, it is not just possible; it's imperative. There is no easy solution to fix the American economy with persistent and high unemployment, but the pessimism it breeds should not be accepted. We must work together to construct an economy that creates more opportunity.'' That is what I want to stress. It pains me when I come here, and I don't want to be negative, but it pains me when I come here and I see the Republicans talk about repeal health care, repeal Wall Street reform, a budget resolution that has no numbers, get rid of Presidential election public financing, all these things, and it is almost as if they don't believe that we can have a vision for the future and don't want to act on it. And the beautiful thing about the President in the last few weeks, and from what apparently he is going to say tomorrow in the State of the Union, is that he has a vision of America of opportunity. That is what the president of GE is talking about when he talks about creating opportunity for people. We have to have a vision that says that this is the land of opportunity and that we can be better and we can continue to be the manufacturing leader and the greatest power in the world.

Mr. PALLONE. I'm really excited about the President's speech tomorrow because I know he's going to stress the whole idea of investment and innovation. He talks about the fact that right now many of the corporations in this country are actually sitting on a lot of profit. I mean, in the last year or so many of them have actually made quite a bit of money, And we want them to reinvest that money in creating private sector jobs here. But one of the points he makes, and I talked a little bit about it tonight, is that the Federal Government has to incentivize all of this. In other words, I used an example with the drug companies that the Federal Government, by doing some research on new drugs, can incentivize the drug companies in my district to do more and create more jobs. But there is also an educational component to it as well. We need to do more in terms of education. It's no surprise that in the middle of this pharmaceutical industry in my district sits Rutgers University. There is a lot of money through the stimulus act, for example, that went to Rutgers to do R&D that is then taken up by the drug industry. So it's part of a whole package, and I am very excited about it. And I just wanted to thank the gentleman again for all that he has done on this.

Mr. PALLONE. I'm glad you talked about my district. I want to talk about my district, and I also want to talk about Mr. Tonko and his district and what the President did last weekend because, as you know, it was a GE plant that he visited in Schenectady. But in addition to that, the president of GE is the guy that President Obama has now tapped to be the head of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. And he wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post talking about what he wants to do, which I wanted to reference because it harks back. I wanted to mention my district first and just say briefly that we in my district pride ourselves on being the invention center of the country, or the world, because the heart of my district is Edison, New Jersey, named after Thomas Edison. And Menlo Park where he invented the light bulb and so many other things, is located in Edison. That's why it was named after him after he passed away. And Edison, of course, is the epitome of someone who used invention and research to practically come up with solutions that made a difference for people's lives and created a tremendous amount of jobs. What the President is saying, let's just talk about the R&D, because I know he's going to talk about that tomorrow. And of course it's going to involve some money that's going to have to be spent by the Federal Government, but it is a wise use of funds. Maybe we're going to have to cut somewhere else in the budget in order to fund things that create jobs; but we are going to, as I said, with a laser beam look at things that create jobs. Now, let you me just give you an example, big manufacturing, and also I should say big research, in my district is with the pharmaceutical industry. J&J is headquartered in New Brunswick. Johnson & Johnson is in my district. And one of the things that I read about, that I was told about actually, the other day was that the President has decided to create a new R&D function, if you will, within the FDA because he has realized that a lot of the drug companies have lagged a little bit in doing a lot of new innovation to create new drugs because of the recession. They don't have the money, whatever reason. And so now the Federal Government is going to concentrate on that and do more research themselves, applied research in the Edison-type of applied research arena, to sort of jump-start these drug companies so that they can create and do more research to create more innovative drugs. Now there's a good example. We've always been a leader in the world with drug or pharmaceutical innovation. Now we're starting to lag a little bit. So the government is going to step in and help to give us some money and more resources, if you will, into that R&D function, which will create more jobs and boost up the existing pharmaceutical industry. The same is true, I understand when he went to GE these are turbines or something that are being used for a project in India. So these are going to be shipped overseas. And my understanding is you talked about 1,200 American manufacturing jobs and more than 400 American engineering jobs just with that GE plant. I will yield to you, but I want to come back to what the president of GE is saying about this council.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that my colleague from California brings up the health reform. We were using CBO numbers, actual numbers that were provided by the CBO to say that we have a $230 billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and a trillion dollars beyond that. We're giving them actual numbers from the CBO to talk about deficit reduction. But I don't see any numbers on this budget resolution that's on this floor today and tomorrow. I call it the ``budget-less'' resolution, because it contains no numbers, no specifics, and worst of all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery, and it doesn't even include a serious plan to reduce the deficit. This is not the way to manage the budget. It's worse than arbitrary. It's like budgeting with blindfolds on. It gives no thought, no reasons, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be. Worst of all, the Republican resolution continues to ignore job creation and economic recovery. It doesn't even contain a real plan to reduce the deficit. We gave you numbers with the health care reform that would actually reduce the deficit. This is a numberless budget, nothing at all.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Matheson's amendment. I do want to point out, though, that the Democrats, when we were in the majority, many times tried to pass a permanent fix and did not receive support, I believe, from many Republicans--except I think in one case we did have Dr. Burgess from Texas' support. Back in November of 2009, we passed a permanent fix, a doctors' fix. But because we could not get any Republican support--any real Republican support--we had to continue to rely on short-term fixes. We did however, as you know, at the end of the last session pass a 1-year fix, which is in effect now. But I do think that this is a very commendable response that Mr. Matheson has, and I certainly intend to support it. But the difficulty is that the many years when the Republicans were in the majority, they had the opportunity to pass a permanent fix and to deal with this issue, and they always kicked the can down the road and then did not cooperate with us on a bipartisan basis when we were in the majority to try to achieve a permanent fix. I certainly intend to work with the Republicans to do that, but they are the reason we don't have it now.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am just amazed. I listened to the gentleman from Georgia who just spoke, and he said that in his district all of the focus is on health care and health care repeal. Well, I don't know, when I go home all I hear in my district is jobs and the economy. People are concerned about the economy. They want us to create jobs, they want us to focus mostly on that issue, not on repeal of health care. The other problem I have with the gentleman from Georgia's comments is he seems to think that because the House passed this repeal yesterday that the health reform is repealed. Well, let me tell everyone it's not, and this is just a ruse. This bill, this health reform wasn't repealed. The Senate isn't even going to take it up. The President has said that he would never sign a repeal bill. So the Republicans are just wasting their time, rather than focusing on what we should be focusing on, the jobs and the economy. They keep talking about this false repeal that is never going to happen. Now, I also wanted to say something about what Mr. Dreier said before. He talked about increasing access, increased choices. That's not what goes on if this bill was ever repealed. The choice is now for people who have preexisting conditions, they can't get insurance. They have to pay more if they try to get it, or the kids that are on the policies that would be taken off if we had the repeal, or the people that would again face lifetime caps. You don't have choices under the old system because you were denied care through the insurance companies' discrimination. The only way you have choices and access is under the health reform that this House and this country have put into law where you are guaranteed you get insurance, even if you have a preexisting condition. You don't have to worry about lifetime caps. You can put your kids on the policies. So don't talk to me about choices and access. People don't have choices and access with those discriminatory policies that would be put back in place by the insurance companies. As they continue to raise premiums, more and more people will not have access to health care and have access to health insurance. The only way you have access and choices is if we keep the health reform in place.