Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3884, the Sickle Cell Disease and Other Heritable Blood Disorders Research, Surveillance, Prevention, and Treatment Act. This bill reauthorizes the sickle cell disease treatment demonstration program and data collection administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources Services Administration. At our Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in June of last year, we heard directly about the importance of this reauthorization to continue critical Federal efforts to improve the lives of the approximately 100,000 Americans living with sickle cell disease. In my State of New Jersey, we have 2,000 cases of sickle cell disease, with an estimated 80 to 90 new cases each year. New Jersey is among the top 10 States with the highest prevalence of sickle cell disease. Thanks in part to programs such as the bill before us, our Nation has seen improvements in data collection, newborn screening, and research efforts for sickle cell disease. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Sickle cell disease patients still experience several barriers to appropriate treatment and care. One barrier is underresourced care programs, leading many patients to rely on emergency care rather than regular, preventive treatment. There is also still mistrust in the healthcare system among many African-American patients, socioeconomic disparities within the sickle cell disease community, and potential discrimination within our healthcare system. While considerable work remains before us, this is an important step to continue the necessary Federal investments to improve health outcomes, increase outcomes to innovative gene therapies, and lower the healthcare costs for many of the Nation's most vulnerable populations. I thank Representative Davis and Dr. Burgess for their advocacy and leadership on this legislation. We know that with early diagnosis and support for effective evidence-based interventions, we can save lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan reauthorization bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is the Democratic sponsor of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge that we support this legislation on a bipartisan basis. Sickle cell disease is something that we need to continue to research and help with. This is an important bill in that respect. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2706, the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits eligible individuals from being denied a lifesaving organ transplant based solely on their disability status. Existing Federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Affordable Care Act, already prohibit organ transplant centers from discriminating based solely on disability. However, there are still cases where people with disabilities have been denied access to organ transplants. This is often because of misperceptions about how a disability impacts the medical likelihood of transplant success or unfounded assumptions regarding disabled persons' abilities to comply with postoperative care. This bill prohibits covered entities from determining that an individual is ineligible to receive a transplant based solely on the fact that the individual has a disability. It also acknowledges the importance of support networks and services and helping with postoperative care. Mr. Speaker, organ transplants can save lives, and it is important that the system be free from discrimination. I am glad that we are taking this step to clarify and build upon existing civil rights protections for people with disabilities. I thank our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs. Cammack and Representative Dingell, as well, for their bipartisan work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2706, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think Mrs. Cammack explained very well why we need to pass this bill, and I would ask all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3433, the Give Kids a Chance Act, sponsored by Representatives McCaul and Eshoo. This bill includes several strong bipartisan pieces of legislation, and I am pleased that our Republican colleagues agreed to work with us on advancing important policies. This legislation will help expand access to care for patients with rare diseases and complex medical needs, increase research and development into rare pediatric diseases, and improve regulatory certainty. This bill will help in our efforts to bring new treatments to pediatric patients with more advanced forms of cancer. It also includes important sections of H.R. 6664, Representative Eshoo's bill, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act. Specifically, it gives the Food and Drug Administration new enforcement authority to take action against companies that do not conduct required studies in pediatric patients. The bill also includes critical language introduced by Representative Matsui as part of H.R. 7383, the Retaining Access and Restoring Exclusivity Act, or RARE Act, and this will clarify FDA's long-held treatment of orphan drug exclusivity and bring new treatments to more patients suffering from rare diseases. These provisions all advance our goals of accelerating the development of novel, safe, and effective treatments and improving outcomes for patients. These bills are going to make a difference, but I remain disappointed that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to consider necessary changes to require drug manufacturers to study their approved rare disease drugs in pediatric populations. It is disappointing that my Republican colleagues refuse to hold drug manufacturers' feet to the fire and have decided to move forward with a long-term reauthorization of the priority review voucher program, or PRV, without requiring manufacturers to study rare disease drugs in pediatric patients. I have been consistent in my belief that we need reforms to the PRV program. Unfortunately, we still have not seen the compelling evidence that this program is functioning how Congress intended it to. That is why I am pleased that the bill includes a requirement for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a new study and report on the effectiveness of the program in attaining our original intent. Previous reports from GAO on the program, and continued research from academics, show that there is little evidence that it incentivized the products Congress intended to help come to market. I continue to believe that additional guardrails are needed to better target the intent of the program, but despite these concerns, I am pleased that this bill includes important provisions to ensure that our medical product supply chain can be strengthened by working with international partners that believe in both tolerance and respect for every person as well as advancement of science and medicine. I look forward to working with our Republican colleagues to ensure FDA receives the funding necessary to implement this policy and establish an FDA office in Israel. I am also pleased that this legislation provides the Health Resources and Services Administration the authority to modernize the organ transplant system. This system is lifesaving for many Americans, and I am glad that we can continue to support these much-needed reform efforts. I believe that we could have achieved more for patients in this legislation. However, since there are strong bipartisan policies included here, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, obviously, this bill does a lot to help childhood disorders. It is a very important bill, and I urge that it be passed on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5526, the Seniors' Access to Critical Medications Act. This bill amends the Physician Self-Referral Law, also known as the Stark Law, to permit Medicare patients to have their physicians dispense prescription drugs to them in narrow circumstances, either through a caregiver or through a mail courier. Congress enacted the Stark Law to ensure that physician financial considerations do not influence patient care. Under the Stark Law, physicians are prohibited from making referrals to entities in which the physician has a financial stake. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the independent judgment of their physicians and access to treatment that is medically appropriate and necessary for them. The Stark Law is critical in ensuring that financial arrangements do not distort physician decisionmaking or raise healthcare costs. Now, current law includes specific and narrowly tailored exceptions such as the in-office ancillary services exception. This exception permits a physician with an ownership stake to provide an outpatient prescription drug or certain services to a patient at his or her office as part of an in-person visit. This is for the convenience of the patient but also because there are more limited program integrity concerns when the item or service is being delivered as part of an in- person office visit. While I continue to have strong concerns with significantly weakening the Stark Law, I believe there are also limited instances in which it may be necessary for a caregiver or a family member to pick up the prescription drugs for patients or for them to be mailed. I believe there are limited program integrity concerns in these instances. This narrow Stark exception will help patients receive necessary medications more easily and protects Medicare beneficiaries by ensuring that financial considerations do not influence patient care. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5526, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 7189, the Congenital Heart Futures Reauthorization Act, sponsored by Representative Bilirakis and cosponsored by Representative Soto. The bipartisan legislation will reauthorize a national congenital heart disease program through 2029. In the United States, about 40,000 babies are born with congenital heart disease, or CHD, every year. Congenital heart disease prevents normal blood flow through the heart and can become a critical issue that results in a baby needing surgery or other procedures early in life. Thanks to scientific advancements in diagnosis and treatment, many babies and children can reach adulthood living with CHD. To continue our progress, we have to continue to support research, surveillance, and awareness for CHD. First passed in 2010, the bipartisan Congenital Heart Futures Act authorized research and data collection related to CHD. The act expands the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's infrastructure to track epidemiological data for CHD. It also increased the National Institutes of Health's research to study lifelong CHD to see how those with the disease can still live a long and healthy life. H.R. 7189 will reauthorize our national congenital heart disease program so we can continue to make strides in addressing CHD. It also builds on our Nation's CHD program. This bill will assess current research efforts at NIH to ensure we have a better understanding of CHD. The bill also expands research at the CDC by directing the agency to understand healthcare utilization, demographics, and best practices for CHD. Finally, the bill allows CDC to establish and implement an awareness campaign so that those with CHD and their families understand the healthcare needs related to this birth defect. Again, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Bilirakis and Soto, for their leadership in reauthorizing the Congenital Heart Futures Act. Thanks to their efforts, we can pass this bill and continue to make strides in addressing CHD. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to reauthorize this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we support this important bill on a bipartisan basis to continue to address the Nation's CHD program effectively. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 6125, the Online Dating Safety Act. I thank the sponsors of this bill, Representatives Valadao and Pettersen, for their leadership on the issue of online dating safety. I also thank Chair Rodgers for her willingness to work with me at committee to improve the bill. As more and more consumers report using online dating services, it is important that they are made aware of potential harms. This bill ensures that when an online dating app bans someone for fraud, it notifies all the other users who have been in contact with that banned person on the app. This will help to reduce the number of people who fall victim to identified fraudsters looking to extort money from dating app users. While there is more to be done to address harms that have arisen in the online dating space, this bill is an important step forward. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Let me just say that this is an important step forward in dealing with online dating safety, and I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2228, the so-called Building Chips in America Act. This bill simply should not be coming up under a suspension of the rules. All three ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction are adamantly opposed to it. When the CHIPS and Science Act passed the House in July of 2022, it passed by a vote of 243-187. All 187 votes against the bill were Republicans. In fact, only 24 Republicans voted for the bill, and a lot of them are no longer here. If Republicans had controlled the House last Congress, the $52 billion that we invested to ensure semiconductors were produced here in the United States instead of China simply would have never become law. I was one of the leaders who pushed the CHIPS and Science Act through the House, and so I, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, am invested in making this program work as intended. As we created this program, we did so with the intention of ending our reliance on other countries for microchips that are used in automobiles, consumer electronics, and washing machines. We did all this while also making sure we protected the environment. The CHIPS and Science Act is a success, but we cannot deflect from that success by once again attacking one of the most important environmental laws that protects all of our communities from corporate malfeasance. I oppose this bill because it would needlessly eliminate environmental review and public input under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, for semiconductor facilities receiving funding under the CHIPS and Science Act. Now, this bill simply is not necessary because NEPA review is not a barrier to moving semiconductor projects forward. Commerce Secretary Raimondo, who oversees the CHIPS and Science Act, and who had initially voiced concern about NEPA reviews, acknowledged at an Energy and Commerce hearing: I can report to you today that we have made a lot of progress on that, and we are on track to complete environmental reviews for all these companies before we issue any awards. There is simply no need for wholesale exemptions from NEPA reviews, given the steps that Congress has already taken to increase the speed, efficiency, and management of permitting for this industry. We made semiconductor manufacturing eligible for the abbreviated permitting process under the FAST-41 Act. This ensured that reviews do not drag out for the most serious environmental impact statements. We also, under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, eliminated NEPA review for loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of financial assistance for similar activities, and we gave the Department of Commerce the ability to adopt categorical exclusions from other agencies. This is really, Mr. Speaker, a bill that is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Now Republican leadership is bypassing regular order to ram through an anti-environment bill that didn't go through any of the committees here in the House before being rushed to the House floor on the suspension calendar. The phenomenal work of the CHIPS Program Office is a cause for celebration, and the program has produced critical wins for countless domestic industries worth highlighting. It is clear that NEPA reviews are not a barrier to moving these projects forward. Fundamentally, NEPA requires us to look before we leap, which is just common sense, and failing to do so could create many new problems for our environment. My colleague mentioned the Superfund sites in Silicon Valley. Do we want those again? This affects our water supply, our worker safety, and our communities, and ignoring these impacts is not going to make them disappear, Mr. Speaker. I thank Ranking Member Lofgren from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and Ranking Member Grijalva from the Natural Resources Committee for joining me in leading the effort to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want all Members to know that Mrs. McIver has experienced a series of firsts. First, she was the youngest person elected to the Newark City Council in 2018. She then was elected council president in 2022, and she is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress from the State of New Jersey. We have her family up there, as my colleagues can see. She has also been a tremendous mentor for young women, in particular. She founded an organization called the Newark G.A.L.S., Inc., which is an organization that has empowered over 3,000 young women throughout the State of New Jersey. We are so proud of her. She is really, more than anything else, a community activist. That is what she is all about. She is going to continue in that tradition here, being an advocate for so many important issues. We are ready to work with her, and we are so glad that she is here today, starting out even as we end this session, because she is going to get a jump on all of her activities. She is just such a nice person. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican joint resolution, a resolution taken straight from Trump's Project 2025 playbook. The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to fully repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, rule setting new protective air pollution standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. Now, this resolution is yet another Republican effort to attack the Clean Air Act and roll back commonsense air pollution protections. It puts the profits of corporate polluters over the health and safety of the American people. Not only is this CRA ripped right out of Trump's extreme Project 2025 playbook, it is just the latest attempt by House Republicans to do the bidding of their Big Oil allies and prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment. Instead of focusing on funding the government, which is set to expire at the end of this month, Republicans are wasting time bringing up this resolution they know has zero chance of becoming law. Even Senate Republicans have publicly admitted that they have abandoned their strategy of using this CRA this Congress. So one really has to ask the question: What are we doing here? This is yet another example of House Republicans failing to be serious about governing or working to implement policies that actually benefit the American people. Americans have the right to clean air and a safe climate, and EPA's clean vehicle rule would put us on the road to achieve those rights. The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, making up nearly one-third of total pollution in the United States. This pollution affects more than 130 million Americans who live in counties with unhealthy air. Even worse, air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in our Nation every year. Thankfully, EPA is working to address this dangerous air pollution with the tools that Congress gave it. Now, EPA's clean vehicle standards will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2027 and 2055, that is equivalent to four times the emissions from the entire transportation sector in 2021. This incredible air pollution reduction will result in tangible benefits for Americans across the country. The rule is projected to yield approximately $100 billion in net benefits each year. Clean vehicle standards are also a win for consumers and our economy. EPA projects U.S. auto manufacturing employment growth of up to 188,000 jobs in 2032 thanks to this rule. That is on top of the existing 200,000 jobs that have already been added in clean vehicle manufacturing since the start of the Biden-Harris administration. Once the standards take effect, American families are expected to save an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle, including fuel, operation, and maintenance costs. So today we are going to hear a lot of false claims from my Republican colleagues. They are going to falsely say that this rule is a mandate, but let me be perfectly clear. EPA's standards are not an electric vehicle mandate. They are technology-neutral and performance based, as required by the Clean Air Act. Auto manufacturers have the flexibility to meet the standards with a wide range of clean vehicle technologies, like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell, internal combustion engines, and full battery electric. Manufacturers can choose the best option for them and to meet the needs of their consumers. EPA worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that the final rule is ambitious and achievable and benefits all Americans. That is why EPA's final clean vehicle rule is supported by a diverse coalition of autoworkers, automakers, and public health and environmental groups. Now, the Biden-Harris rule accelerates the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies that will offer expanded, better choices for consumers, lower costs, and make sure that the United States dominates the next century's worth of clean technology. This Republican resolution reverses course, putting all of this at risk, and replacing it with nothing. What is more, it also prevents any future administration from taking similar action, and that is a recipe for disaster for our economy, the American people, and for our climate. Madam Speaker, I just received an SAP, the Statement of Administration Policy, from the Biden administration. I am not going to read it all, but I just want to read the last part of it where it says that this rule is supported by U.S. automakers and autoworkers and that repealing it would jeopardize development in the critical technology sector, ceding the electric vehicle and battery future to global competitors like China. I hear all the time my colleagues on the other side talking about Communist China and talking about Beijing and how we are not keeping up with them. Well, the majority will be doing exactly the opposite with this repeal of the rule. Republicans will give Communist China the competitive edge. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 136, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of our Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.