Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5265) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research with respect to various forms of muscular dystrophy, including Becker, congenital, distal, Duchenne, Emery- Dreifuss facioscapulohumeral, limb-girdle, myotonic, and oculopharyngeal, muscular dystrophies, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. First of all, I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, he has made a lot of statements about my views on this subject which are simply not true, and I do not appreciate them.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3560) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide additional funds for the qualifying individual (QI) program, and for other purposes.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, we could certainly have hearings on it, and as I discussed with the gentleman, I would like to have hearings not only on that bill but on the issue of Lyme disease, research and treatment, and we will certainly do that in the next session. But we're obviously not doing this today in the context of a consent calendar.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3560, the QI Program Supplemental Funding Act of 2008, introduced by my Senate colleague, Senator Max Baucus. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a number of technical, but important, changes that will improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This legislation also contains an important provision that will help incentivize the development of new antibiotics. Earlier this summer, Congress passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which extended the Qualifying Individual, or QI, program to December of 2009. The QI program provides important financial assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, when we passed H.R. 6331, we did not include enough money in the QI program to fully cover the level of need. We need an additional $45 million in order to fully cover the cost of the program through the end of next year. Otherwise, vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries may be disenrolled and lose access to important health services, and we certainly can't allow this to happen. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also contains a provision that would encourage and incentivize drug manufacturers to research and develop antibiotics. Presently, there's too little research being done to develop new and innovative antibiotics therapies. That is particularly troubling at a time when antibiotic resistance is a growing problem. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year, and 90,000 die as a result. Approximately 70 percent of these infections are resistant to at least one drug. Mr. Speaker, the R&D pipeline for antibiotics is drying up. Major pharmaceutical companies simply are not investing in the development of new antibiotics because it's not as profitable as drugs that treat chronic conditions. This is an important provision that I believe will help reverse that trend and lead to new breakthroughs and help protect the public health. Mr. Speaker, in addition to these two provisions, the bill before us contains several other technical changes that would improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs and generate savings. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just point out that on this and so many other issues it is amazing to me that the gentleman, who was in the majority for so many years and had so many opportunities to raise this and other issues, is somehow now suggesting that the Democrats are boxing it up. You know, Lyme has been around for a long time. The people concerned about this issue have been trying to address it for a long time. The bottom line, as the gentleman knows, it's a very controversial issue. We will certainly raise it, but he had ample opportunity, the many years that he was in the majority, to raise it and it just didn't happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. First of all, I resent the fact that the gentleman is suggesting that we ``boxed this up.'' I would point out to the gentleman that the problem of Lyme disease has been around for many years. And the gentleman and his committee, Appropriations Committee, were in the majority for, what, at least 12 years before the last 2 years that the Democrats have been in the majority? Certainly, the gentleman had plenty of opportunity, and still does, to do something about this himself.

Mr. PALLONE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I would just say this: You know, it does bother me because the gentleman is sort of suggesting that you and I haven't had conversations about this. We've actually had many conversations about this. I've told you the same thing I've just said here on the floor. And I really don't understand why the gentleman is giving the impression that somehow we haven't discussed this because we have.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, as I've discussed with the gentleman, because we have actually talked about this on several occasions, I believe we are now doing what we call consent bills, in other words, bills that have the consent, meaning are basically agreed to not only by the Democrats and Republicans, but also by the members of the subcommittee and the Members of the House in general, because as you know, you have to have a two-thirds vote to pass these bills or do them by unanimous consent. We do not have anything near consensus on that legislation. It would have to go through regular order, have a hearing, go through subcommittee. The problem is that many, probably the majority, but I won't venture to say whether it's majority or minority, but many people do not agree with the protocol, if you will, that is suggested, if not mandated, by that legislation. In other words, right now, the majority of the doctors treat Lyme disease, you know, in a certain fashion. Those who advocate for that legislation suggest a different protocol, and frankly, I have tried very hard as chairman of the Health Subcommittee not to mandate or make decisions for physicians as to what kind of protocols they use. In this case, the protocol is very different from the overwhelming majority of the doctors, and so it's a very controversial issue that needs to have a lot of debate. So there's absolutely no way that we could do something like that on a consent calendar because many of the Members simply don't support it.

Mr. PALLONE. What I said is I would like to have hearings on the issue related to Lyme. We can certainly take up the issues that are raised in that legislation in the context of that, but as I would say to the gentleman again, the protocol in that legislation is very controversial. It's certainly one of the many things that we would have to consider in the context of research and treatment of Lyme disease.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Mr. Stark. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 426, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 3560, be re-referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in addition, to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution just considered.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida, and I certainly associate myself with her remarks with regard to this very important stimulus bill. I want to rise in strong support of the rule allowing for H.R. 7110 to be considered, but I would particularly like to focus on the FMAP, or the Medicaid provisions of the bill, which would provide important financial assistance to cash-strapped States in order to maintain their Medicaid programs. Medicaid provides over 61 million Americans with access to medical care and specialized support and services. It protects our most vulnerable populations, our poor and disabled. Unfortunately, as State economies face growing fiscal pressures, the Medicaid programs in many States are threatened and millions of American citizens are in danger of losing access to the health care coverage that they desperately need. These cuts affect not only those already on Medicaid, but also those who will come to need it as the economy continues to plummet. As people lose their jobs, they also lose access to employer-sponsored health care coverage, forcing more people to turn to Medicaid for their health care needs. A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that increasing the national unemployment rate by 1 percentage point increases Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 1 million. At a time when States are already struggling to balance their budgets, this type of change in unemployment rates would increase State spending by approximately $1.4 billion. H.R. 7110 will provide a temporary FMAP increase to help avert cuts to State Medicaid programs. In effect, we are increasing the Federal share. This is a proven strategy for stimulating the economy. A similar provision was passed in 2003 by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush as part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. So I essentially consider this a bipartisan effort. Studies have shown that the temporary increase then provided the funding needed to successfully avert or limit cuts to State Medicaid programs and helped stimulate the economies of the States back in 2003. Mr. Speaker, the FMAP provision included in H.R. 7110 is an important measure that will help provide much-needed fiscal relief to our States and help protect access to health care services for some of our most vulnerable citizens. And it is an economic stimulus. It basically means that more money would be available to the States to cover more people, and that means more jobs. It means the actual delivery of health care services serves as a major stimulator of the economy. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the rule, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree with my colleague from Massachusetts for several reasons. First of all, this is not about Iran. India's entire history with regard to nuclear weapons has been defensive, completely defensive, not offensive in the way Iran speaks and its President speaks. In addition, India is very much like the United States. We know it's a democracy. We know there has always been very strict civilian control of its nuclear weapons. This is really not about nuclear weapons at all. It's about a civilian nuclear agreement between the United States and India. And we know very much that India is similar to the United States; it seeks energy independence, it does not want to be dependent upon Mid East oil and the Mid East countries in the same way that we are. By putting this agreement together, by passing this agreement tomorrow, basically we will be making India part of our partnership and saying that we will share civilian nuclear purposes. We will strengthen not only our own independence from Mid East oil, we will also strengthen India's. And the bottom line is that there is only a history of cooperation between the United States and India. India has a strong record--and I heard some of my colleagues say to the contrary, it simply is not true--India has a strong record of trying to create a situation of nuclear nonproliferation. It has been a leader, in fact, on that. And this agreement is simply going to strengthen that even more. I think that we can trust India in the way that we can trust our own leaders. And the fact that we are going to work and have this agreement passed tomorrow--and I know that it will pass and it will pass on a bipartisan basis--will simply strengthen the alliance between our two countries, which is so important to both countries' future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, last week Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and the stock markets fell 500 points. Senator McCain's response? He declared that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. What a difference a week makes. Senator McCain must have had an epiphany on Wednesday when he decided to suspend his campaign so that he could come back to Washington. And what exactly created this epiphany? How about new poll numbers that show Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by nine points. This was a political ploy. Senator McCain is trying to distract the American public from the fact that he was part of the Washington gang that helped create this mess in the first place. He has proudly proclaimed that he is the biggest supporter of deregulation in Washington, and that is what created this problem. When you take the referees off the field, the game gets out of hand. Case in point: Wall Street. Madam Speaker, Senator McCain represents more of the same in Washington. Change is needed, and that is not Senator McCain.