Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Kenneth Pringle, mayor of Belmar, New Jersey. Mr. Pringle will be retiring from his position as mayor after serving for 20 years. Surrounded by family, friends and colleagues, Mr. Pringle's efforts and dedication will be recognized at an awards dinner on January 22, 2011. This celebration is well-deserved in light of Mayor Pringle's 20 years of service as an admirable public servant to the constituents of Belmar. Mayor Pringle has served as the mayor of Belmar from 1990 through 2010. The longest serving mayor of Belmar, Mr. Pringle is a staunch advocate for environmental issues and maintaining clean beaches. He has successfully sought the implementation of a smoke-free policy along the beaches in Belmar. This policy acts as a model for various towns throughout New Jersey. During his tenure, Mr. Pringle has also supported the implementation of ``green'' and ``sustainable'' living throughout Belmar. He has also advocated against offshore drilling, hosting numerous events and press conferences in Belmar relating to this topic. Mayor Pringle's outstanding contributions to the borough of Belmar continue to resonate and positively affect the lives of the residents. Mr. Pringle has served on various committees, enhancing his experience and ability to assist constituents. Mr. Pringle served as chairman of the Belmar Charter Study Commission from 1989 through 1990, past chairman of the Belmar Housing Authority and a member of the Belmar Planning Board and counsel to the Red Bank Planning Board. He is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Monmouth Ocean Development Council and has served on the Board of Directors of New Jersey Transit Corporation. Mr. Pringle is a founder of the Belmar Improvement Fund. He was also instrumental in the forming of the Belmar Arts Council. Mr. Pringle's unending advocacy and hard work have undoubtedly helped countless people throughout Belmar. Mr. Pringle is a graduate of Mount Saint Mary's College in Emmitsburg, Maryland and Georgetown University Law Center, where he was the criminal procedure project editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. From 1982 through 1983, Mr. Pringle served as law clerk to the Honorable Clement Haynsworth, Jr. of the fourth circuit. He also worked as an associate at the Washington, DC law firms of Hogan & Hartson and Ross, Dixon & Masback but soon returned to Belmar, New Jersey in 1987 to open a solo law practice. Mr. Pringle is currently the managing partner of Pringle Quinn Anzano, P.C., a 25 person law firm with offices in Belmar, Morristown and Trenton, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing Mayor Kenneth Pringle's 20 years of service to the borough of Belmar. Mr. Pringle's achievements make him a deserving recipient of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Mr. James Manning, Jr., to the people of Neptune, NJ. Mr. Manning stepped down from his position on the Neptune Township Committee on January 1st of this year after 15 years of dedicated and uncompromised service to the people of his hometown and the people of Monmouth County and our great State of New Jersey. As a lifelong resident of Neptune, Jim, as he is known to his friends, joined the Neptune Township Committee on January 1, 1996, as one of the youngest elected officials in the history of the Township. But this was not the first act of public service for Mr. Manning. Jim was already living the words of the great President Abraham Lincoln who said, ``He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help.'' By the time of his first successful election, he had already served on a number of municipal boards and worked in many campaigns and volunteer organizations. His election was recognition and reward for his service to the residents of the Township; recognition which was reinforced five more times as he continually won reelection no matter the political environment. Mr. Manning during his 15 years of service was honored by his peers to act as mayor in 1998, 2003 and in 2007. He also served numerous times as deputy mayor and police commissioner and served on many boards as a governmental representative and liaison to departments such as Administration, Finance, Police, Courts and Public Safety as well as the Board of Health and Welfare. He also made great strides in increasing the service while controlling the costs associated with the Department of Public Works to which he served as liaison during his entire tenure on the Township Committee. But as any great public servant, his service did not define him but was a compliment to the individual. A native of Neptune and son of Flo and James Manning, Sr., Jim worked for 12 years for Jersey Central Power and Light and today is employed serving the citizens of the State of New Jersey in the Department of Labor in the area of Workforce Development. During his time with Jersey Central he also served his brothers and sisters in the labor movement for 5 years as the vice president of IBEW Local 1309. Mr. Manning has two children, son Michael, 19, and daughter Melanie, who is 15, in whom he takes great pride. He also over the holidays asked Ms. Lori Davis to become his wife and join him as he embarks on this new phase of his life. I know that though Jim has left elective office, he will not leave the service to the people of his hometown. I want to add my thanks to those of the citizens of Neptune Township for his years as a dedicated public servant and my best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, earlier this afternoon many of us attended a congressional prayer service for the victims of the shooting in Arizona, and I just wanted to reflect on three things that occurred there that really were meaningful for me. One was after the prayer service, the staff of Gabby Giffords were gathered, and we had an opportunity to meet them and shake their hands and talk to them a little bit. And I was just taken aback, first of all, by how young they were and how optimistic they were, of course optimistic about her because they really feel and they're praying, and we all do, that she has a full recovery. But I can't help but reflect on the fact that not only the Congresswoman but her staff were so dedicated. I would often talk to Gabby on the floor oftentimes in the back of this room; and as many have said, she was wonderful. She was so enthusiastic about her job, about her constituents. She is also a beautiful person. And I was just so happy to hear that after the operation that they were optimistic about her recovery, and it seems like every day she gets better. So I'm really looking forward to her coming back here. And I want to pay tribute to her staff. I mean, obviously three of them were injured. One was killed. That person was killed, and all of them were facing the reality, unfortunately, that we do face now that when we do outreach, that there is a certain amount of danger. But I also think that it's really important for us to say that we are going to fight against that. We are going to continue to be out there meeting with our constituents, and we want people to come and meet with us. The second thing was the House Chaplain. At the prayer service today he said that the Arizona victims were essentially martyrs to the cause of America because they were out there participating in democracy. And I really think that that's true, that the need to participate and the democratic process is what this is all about. And to the extent that we reinforce that in the aftermath of this tragedy is really important. And the last thing I would say is some of the Members today, and particularly Ed Pastor when he spoke at the prayer service, he said that we have to be inspired to better the lives of others.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Mary R. Sabik, municipal clerk of Union Beach, New Jersey. In 2010, Ms. Sabik retired from her position as municipal clerk after serving the residents of Union Beach for 45 years. She quickly adapted to the various demands and responsibilities as municipal clerk, performing above and beyond expectations. Today, I congratulate Ms. Sabik for her exceptional work and extend my best wishes as she begins to enter the next chapter of her life. Sworn into office in 1966 as municipal clerk, Ms. Sabik has firsthand experience with local government and the development of the Union Beach community. During her tenure, she served under six different mayors: Alfred Hennessy, Jr.; Fred Varlese; Vincent Farley; Carmen Stoppiello; Richard Ellison; and current mayor, Paul Smith, Jr. Her responsibilities also included serving as assessment searcher, assistant recycling coordinator and election clerk. Ms. Sabik continues to supersede her expectations. Her honorable actions are undoubtedly deserving of this body's recognition. Ms. Sabik is an inspirational and strong cancer survivor and volunteers her time with the American Cancer Society. She continues to assist with fundraising for cancer research and education. The ``Love Lights a Tree'' exhibit is displayed annually at Union Beach Borough Hall to honor survivors and victims of cancer during the holiday season. The exhibit is a result of Ms. Sabik's hard work and dedication toward this cause. Ms. Sabik has also admirably served on the borough's Heritage Committee and participated in various bicentennial celebrations throughout the community. Ms. Sabik currently resides in Union Beach, New Jersey. She has two daughters, Charlene and Allison, and five grandchildren ranging from ages 12 to 18 years old. She enjoys reading biographies, boating, cooking and relaxing with a movie in the evening. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Sabik for her 45 years of service to the borough of Union Beach. Her continued hard work and dedication are an example of what steadfast commitment and dedication can accomplish.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, this is nothing but a gag rule. I and so many of my colleagues on the Democratic side went up to the Rules Committee yesterday and asked for amendments, and they were almost all excluded from this rule. The Republican chairman of the committee says there is transparency. He says that there is an opportunity for participation. He can say it as many times as he wants, but it is simply not true. He also said that this was a commitment to the American people. There is no commitment to the American people here. The only commitment is to the insurance companies. They are the only ones that are going to gain from repeal of this very important legislation, because they want to increase premiums, and they want to institute discriminatory practices again against women, a woman perhaps who has breast cancer and a preexisting condition and can't get insurance, or bring back those lifetime caps, or bring back those annual caps where people lose their insurance if they have had a serious operation and they try to go back again and they don't have insurance, or perhaps the child who is up to 26 and who also will not be able to get on their parents' insurance policy again. Let me tell you here, the only one who benefits is the insurance company, not the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. ``No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALLONE. ``Neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Well, first of all, let me thank you, my colleague from California, and each of the other speakers here for the contribution they have made tonight, and particularly when I listened to my colleague from Tennessee talk about those particular cases of individuals that were impacted, because that's really what this is all about. Again, it is amazing to me that the first act of this new Republican majority is to try to repeal a bill, health care reform, that really is making a difference for people on a personal level, particularly with the patient protections. You know, I thought to myself when I was coming down here: Who benefits from repeal? Who could possibly benefit from repeal? Because, as many of you talked about, all the people who are going to be harmed by it, who would benefit from it? And the only group I could think of that would benefit from the repeal are the big insurance companies because, if you think about it, what do they want to do? They want to keep increasing premiums. I read that in your State--I don't know, you may have already mentioned it--Blue Cross/Blue Shield, whatever, is talking about a 50-something percent increase. I cannot fathom these double-digit increases. And, of course, as this health care reform kicks in, it's going to be more and more difficult for the types of increases that we've seen in premiums that these big health insurance companies have put forward. And the reason the insurance companies want to get rid of the Patients' Bill of Rights and reinstitute all of these discriminatory practices, whether it be denying care because of preexisting conditions or reinstituting lifetime caps or, you know, the different protections that we've seen kick in, the reason they want to do that is also money-oriented. In other words, they have to pay out money. You talked about the cancer person. I was up at the Rules Committee earlier, and Ms. Slaughter was talking about someone who had cancer and was treated and ran into the lifetime cap, and then the cancer reoccurred and she didn't have any more coverage because she had hit the lifetime cap. And that's a perfect example. They want to have lifetime caps. They want to have annual caps. They don't want preexisting conditions. They don't want your kids on your policy because it saves them money. The way that they make profits and pay dividends to their shareholders is by raising premiums and having discriminatory practices that eliminate the people that cost money because they need health care. I mean, it's that simple. And already, and just in the last few weeks, provisions have kicked in that go against that. The President announced--or the White House announced, I think around Christmastime, new regulations that say that any premium increase that's over 10 percent will be scrutinized. And under the provisions of this bill and the new regulations, these increases are not allowed to go above 10 percent. On January 1, the provisions kicked in that said that 80 percent of your premium costs had to be used for benefits, couldn't be used for insurance company profits, couldn't be used to pay back dividends to the shareholders. So all of these initiatives that are already kicking in, they basically make it more difficult for the insurance companies to make a big profit, and the consequence of that is that health insurance becomes more affordable. I was up at the Rules Committee earlier. It was interesting because, I think you mentioned, my colleague from California, or one of you mentioned that we, under this bill, under the health care reform that's in place now that they want to repeal, we get the same health insurance, as Congressmen, as any other American. You know, I still have people write to me and say, well, you know, You have your own policy, but you want to give me this lousy coverage that I'm going to get under the health care reform. And I have to write back and say, No, that's not true. You may hear that on some TV station or something, but it's simply not true. We specifically wrote into the bill that we have to go into the exchanges just like everybody else. We are going to be different from other Federal employees, as Congressmen, because we go into the exchanges. So, at the Rules Committee today, one of the Republican Members who is very supportive of repeal said that he specifically wasn't going to take health insurance as a Congressman, and he wanted me to know that because he was voting for repeal. And I said, Well, that's very nice and that's commendable for you, but I, frankly, think that every Member of Congress who votes for repeal should say, I don't want health insurance from the Federal Government, because if you are going to deny it to everyone else, you should deny it to yourself. Just the way we're saying that we are going to get the same coverage as everyone else, well, if you don't want anyone else to have the coverage, then you shouldn't get it yourself. And I know that some Members have already taken issue. There was one Member from Maryland who came to the orientation, a Republican Member from Maryland who apparently was a big advocate for repeal. And he said that he was inquiring because his Federal health insurance didn't take effect, as a Congressman, until February 1. We were sworn in yesterday, but I guess it takes 30 days before the insurance actually kicks in. He was complaining about the fact that had he to wait until February 1 to get his health insurance, as a Congressman. Well, you know, again, if you're going to vote for repeal next week, you shouldn't be worried about when it's going to kick in. You shouldn't be taking it at all, in my opinion. So there is a lot of--I don't know what the phrase is--smoke and mirrors or whatever the word is that is going on around here on the other side of the aisle in how they are viewing this. And my point is, you know, there is a lot of protection here for people. Don't deny them that unless you're going to deny it to yourself. But more than that, think about who is helped by this repeal--only the big insurance companies. They are the only ones that are going to benefit. I know you were the insurance commissioner, and so you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I just wanted to talk a little bit about prevention, and particularly in terms of seniors, which you mentioned, and what it means in terms of people's health and also the cost to the government, because some of the things that we've mentioned with regard to seniors have already taken place. This summer under the bill, seniors who fell into the doughnut hole got a $250 rebate. Beginning January 1, they get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs if they fall into the doughnut hole in 2011. You mentioned the copays for preventative care, whether it's your annual wellness treatment or other kinds of tests like mammograms or colonoscopies, for example. The reason that we are eliminating the 20 percent copay for these things, the reason we are trying to fill up the doughnut hole, it all goes back to prevention. Because if people get their drugs and they don't end up getting sick and going to the hospital, if they get these tests or they have the annual wellness checks, they stay healthy, they don't go to the hospital. And when they go to the hospital, if they are on Medicare, it just costs the government more money. So this is the way we save money. We save money. And what does that mean? It means that the debt is decreased. It means that the solvency of Medicare you have on the chart is extended. I don't know if we have talked much about that. One of my amendments in the Rules Committee today is--a lot of seniors tell me, they come up to me and say they are worried about the fact that Medicare may become insolvent and there wouldn't be enough money in the trust fund to pay for it. The bottom line is that the health care reform bill extends the judgment day, if you will, when the solvency problem becomes an issue much further. And if you have the repeal, the solvency problem hits us 6 years from now, in 2017, from what I understand. So another problem with repeal is not only does it increase the deficit, but it also is only 6 years from now that we would have to deal with this Medicare solvency problem. And what is that going to mean? That is going to mean probably cutbacks in benefits for senior citizens. Because if you don't have the money, you are going to have to cut back on the benefits. It is amazing to me how they can continue to talk about this repeal. The other thing they keep saying on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans say, well, the reason we want the repeal is because this health care reform is killing jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that under this health care reform because the cost of health care premiums for employers will be significantly reduced, they will be able to hire more people. Part of the problem that we have with competition with other countries, you mentioned all these other countries, all these other industrial countries that have free health care, universal health care. That means that the employers don't carry the burden of that. So when they hire someone if the government is paying for it, they don't have to worry about that for their employees necessarily. If the cost of premiums go down, then the costs of hiring somebody goes down in the United States. In addition to that, there are all kinds of jobs created in the health care professions because, as everyone gets covered and everybody needs a primary care doctor, you're going to need more doctors, more nurses, more health aides because people will get that kind of preventative care. So there are jobs created with the preventative care in handling people, to make sure they stay healthy or they stay well. It is unbelievable to me when they talk about repeal. What the Republicans should be doing is spending the first few days of this session talking about how to improve the economy and create jobs, not repealing health care. I think the American people have moved on. They don't want to hear this. They want to know what this Congress is going to do to create jobs and improve the economy. We've already dealt with the health care issue and they want us to move on.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Today's rules package reveals only one thing--and that is hypocrisy. Despite all the rhetoric about the deficit, the Republicans' first act in the majority will be to allow a legislative process that goes back to exploding our national debt. The Republicans' new plan will replace a strict pay-as-you-go policy with a much weaker one-sided policy known as cut-as-you-go, under which mandatory spending still needs to be paid for, but tax cuts do not. And this means that Republicans can cut taxes for the rich and increase the deficit while doing it. But, Madam Speaker, it only gets worse. The Republicans know that the new health care reform bill reduces the deficit by a trillion dollars over the next two decades, and they've put a special exemption in their rule that says as long as we're repealing health care reform, we can increase the deficit. Republicans will be judged on the promises they make to the American people. And so far they're already failing to live up to the standard that they've set for themselves.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I don't think there is any doubt that this has been one of the most productive Congresses in American history, but I also want to talk about the lame duck session and how productive that has been as well. In this lame duck session, we have had one of the largest major tax cuts to help the average person, to help the middle class, in the history of the Republic. Child tax credits, payroll tax reduction, education tax benefits, the list goes on. In addition to that, we did the ``doc fix'' for Medicare for another year. We also repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Finally, yesterday, we did the food safety bill, one of the most comprehensive bills that we could possibly pass. So there is no question that this has been a productive Congress, and this has been a very productive lame duck Congress. I am also hopeful that today in the Senate and here in the House we will also pass the 9/ 11 health bill for first responders, and that will complete, again, one of the most productive lame duck sessions and productive Congresses in American history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2019. Today, this body, for the third time, will vote on legislation to finally keep our promise and take care of the heroes of 9/11. I would like to thank the bill's sponsors, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler, as well as my colleagues from New York on the committee, Eliot Engel and Anthony Weiner, also, for their tireless work on behalf of this legislation. Madam Speaker, this bill would establish the World Trade Center Health Program, a program to screen, monitor and treat eligible responders and survivors who are suffering from World Trade Center related diseases. It also reopens the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. H.R. 847, as amended, costs $4.2 billion over 10 years. Of that amount, $1.5 billion will go to the health program, while $2.7 billion will go the VCF. Both programs are now limited to 5 years. The amended bill before us today also changes how the two programs are paid for by a 2 percent fee on government procurement from foreign companies located in nongovernmental procurement, and a 1-year extension of H1-B and L-1 visa fees for outsourcing companies. Madam Speaker, this bill has long been a huge priority for me and many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I would urge passage of this bill and send it to the President. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who is the prime sponsor of the legislation and has worked so hard on this bill. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, who has done so much to make this bill possible.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of the sponsors of the bill who has worked tirelessly on this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. McMAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)