Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, again, the previous Republican speaker said that we are confusing the public, and I think it is they that are, in fact, confusing the public. We are hearing all kinds of anti-vaccine misinformation on the floor and in Rules, and I just think it is important to note that CDC, FDA, and nearly all health professionals are near unanimous in recommending that people get vaccinated and that vaccines are safe and effective. I just think it is very damaging for the public to constantly hear from Members on the other side of the aisle about potential problems with vaccination because then people think that they shouldn't get vaccinated. I know what your position is, that you don't want it to be mandated which, of course, I disagree with because of what public health experts say for foreign travelers, but please don't continue to give misinformation. There are over 500 people that die every day from COVID. COVID is still here. COVID continues to spread. The variants could come up and spread at any moment, so we should not give the impression that people should not take vaccines. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Pennsylvania--let me just make it clear. I have not used the word ``conspiracy.'' I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy on the other side of the aisle. What I just resent is the fact that I do not hear any of my colleagues on the other side, on the Republican side, get up and say that vaccines are safe and effective, and people should take them. We had an amendment by Mr. Takano before the Rules Committee, which would have made it clear that nothing in this bill shall be construed to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. This would send a strong message to us that we should come together on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this bill is not intended to disparage vaccines and that the House of Representatives stands in support of science and reason, but my colleagues refuse to say that. It is not a question of a conspiracy. It is a question of I believe it is your obligation to tell the American people that they should be vaccinated or at least that the vaccines are safe and effective in most cases, but you don't do that. So the misconception is out there. It is not a conspiracy, but it is a misconception that vaccines are not safe. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, this is the third in a series of bills over the last 2 weeks that tries to roll back the protections that the Federal Government has put in place to try to stop the pandemic. Now, granted, the pandemic--we have had a lot of success. I mean, President Biden for the last 2 years in terms of promoting vaccines and testing and all kinds of public health protections, COVID is on the wane. The number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, all that is on the wane. He has said that he is planning on May 11 to lift the public health emergency. But all I have been saying, and all the Democrats have been saying for the last 2 weeks on all these bills, is let's go by the science. Let's be reasonable about this. Let's not assume that we can let foreign travelers in and them not be vaccinated. Let's not assume that it is a good thing for public health workers to be unvaccinated. Let's not make a decision to end the public health emergency immediately. Let's leave it up to the agencies and the experts, which again, I believe, are the best in the world. I am not interested in what Russia does or Cuba does or some of these other countries that are mentioned because we have the best experts in the world. If anybody denies that I will prove it to them that we do. The bottom line is that as Democrats, we understand that the pandemic is on the wane, but we don't want to rush to make decisions or force decisions, if you will, on our public health experts that could be detrimental or make it difficult and tie their hands. One of the things that is in this bill--and there are going to be a series of amendments now to deal with this--is to say that not only is this vaccine mandate eliminated but that the CDC can't even make any other types of mandates like that in the future. That is very dangerous to tie their hands when we don't know exactly where COVID and the variants are going to be going in the next few months or the next few years. It is a mistake to do that. So we will hear about some of these amendments that I think are really important, but the bottom line is this is a bad bill. It continues this policy of basically eliminating the protections that we have been trying to put in place, that we have had in place, and that have helped us get beyond the COVID pandemic, for the most part. I urge my colleagues, you know, for the sake of science, for the sake of helping people, for the sake of public health to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The reason I am opposed to the amendment is because I don't think it is necessary or is even helpful to the issue at hand. It talks about a report on the number of visitors denied entry under this policy. The fact of the matter is that, on the Democratic side, what we are concerned about is the public health. If the gentlewoman wanted to have an amendment that said there would be a report that provides us with public health data to justify lifting the mandate, I could see something like that because the bottom line here is we are concerned about the science. The CDC says that this mandate is necessary to protect Americans, to reduce the COVID cases, to make sure that people don't get sick and that more people are hospitalized and be taxing on our public health system. So I don't see how this amendment that talks about the number of visitors gets to any of that. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 382, which would abruptly and irresponsibly end the COVID-19 public health emergency virtually overnight. It would require this action immediately without providing patients, hospitals, providers, and States sufficient notice to safely unwind numerous authorities, programs, and flexibilities that have been essential to protecting Americans throughout the pandemic. Last night, the Biden administration announced that the COVID-19 public health emergency is planned to be ended on May 11, 2023. This timeline provides healthcare providers and patients with the certainty and predictability needed to responsibly wind down the COVID-19 response programs. As a result of these successful programs, as well as the historic investments made by Congress, millions of Americans have received free vaccines and tests, safe access to their doctors through telehealth appointments, and continuous healthcare coverage through programs such as Medicaid and CHIP. Unfortunately, Republicans are needlessly rushing forward today with a reckless plan that would jeopardize the health of millions of Americans by immediately ceasing these important response programs without advanced preparations. Mr. Speaker, a pandemic of this magnitude cannot be unwound overnight. We cannot flip a switch and make COVID-19 end with the snap of a finger. If H.R. 382 becomes law, it would have disastrous consequences. It would disrupt insurance coverage for millions of vulnerable Americans by allowing States to immediately start kicking vulnerable Americans off their healthcare coverage without any protections. This is deeply irresponsible and dangerous. Americans would also immediately begin paying out of pocket for the COVID-19 testing, and hospitals would see an immediate payment cut of 20 percent for Medicare patients with COVID-19. In addition, important waivers and flexibilities, including certain telemedicine flexibilities that providers and patients have relied on for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, would be terminated immediately, as well. This legislation would also result in the elimination of vital tools for tracking COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes and other residential facilities. It also impacts our veterans, ending VA clinicians' ability to prescribe controlled substances via telehealth. This would severely impact many veterans' access to medications that they need to manage chronic pain, complex mental health conditions, and substance use disorder. The legislation also threatens the progress the VA has made in ending veterans' homelessness. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it would abruptly end flexibilities for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that would impact many Americans struggling to put food on their tables, particularly for those having trouble finding work and low-income college students. The Republicans began their House majority with chaos and confusion earlier this month, and this bill continues that chaos and confusion, but this time it will hurt millions of Americans directly, and that is simply not right. Responsibly transitioning to the post-emergency future requires careful planning and coordination with public health officials and policymakers. I applaud the Biden administration for properly guiding the Nation to a safe transition as we unwind these programs without endangering access to care and treatment for Americans. Unfortunately, Republicans are rushing to recklessly and dangerously eliminate all these protections immediately and without warning. I just think it is the height of irresponsibility. For that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I commend Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, my colleague, for everything that she just said. I remember so many times during the first year of the COVID pandemic when she was calling me and trying to get testing sites, trying to make sure that a lot of her constituents were tested and had received the vaccine. It is very easy for our colleagues on the other side now to say, well, this is over. It is time to move on. But the bottom line is that we never know for sure exactly what is going to manifest itself. Even when the President said yesterday that he is planning on ending this public health emergency on May 11, notice he said ``plan'' because we are not sure that that is possible. In any case, it makes no sense to just say that we are going to do this immediately upon enactment of this bill--which is not going to be enacted, but nonetheless--because we need to do a lot of preparation and planning. We did some of that even in the omnibus that passed at the end of the last session with continuous eligibility for Medicaid, for example. My understanding is the way this bill is worded, that would end if this passed immediately, as well. Mr. Speaker, so our point is that this is a pandemic that we just have to be very careful about what we do. We have to do adequate preparation. The President has said May 11 is the likely date. That is fine. But it has to be based on science. We shouldn't be getting up here and say, ``end it immediately.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz).

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened to my colleague from Kentucky, but as much as I respect him, I totally disagree with what he has been saying here. Under the public law right now, the emergency--when it starts, when it ends--is done by the administration. Specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I guess, recommends to the President. There is a reason for that, and that is because he gets all this information from various sources about the science, about when we should be doing this. I disagree to say that we, as the Congress, should be the ones that make that determination either to begin or end. In addition to that, the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned in response to one of my Democratic colleagues the provision that we passed in the last Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act to negotiate prices for prescription drugs under Medicare. The fact of the matter is that wasn't a cut to Medicare. That was a way of trying to make drug prices more affordable for our seniors. To suggest that somehow that is a cut I don't think is accurate. I mean, this is a major savings to seniors out of pocket once this program goes into effect. By way of background, again, some of my Democratic colleagues have stressed that we hear constantly from the other side of the aisle this idea that the Republicans are going to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless they can cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and other vital programs. They seem so determined to cut Americans' healthcare that they are willing to recklessly risk defaulting on the national debt and wreaking havoc on the economy. Again, it is the same thing here. What we are saying is if you cut off this public health emergency earlier than what the President is suggesting, under this bill, you end a lot of programs that are very important: continuous eligibility for Medicaid, a 20 percent cut in hospital payments, free testing, free vaccines. I mean, all this ends, and it makes no sense, in my opinion. We should be trying to do what we can to help American families and make the right decisions based on the science. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this in closing. We do have one more speaker, though. I think that this legislation that is before us today is totally unnecessary and creates all kinds of problems. In other words, the President has indicated his plan is to end the emergency on, I believe he said, May 12. We estimated it would probably end sometime in April of this year when we were working on the omnibus at the end of last year. We put in the omnibus a lot of protections and guardrails for when the public health emergency would end, but there is still more that needs to be done. My concern is that the way this bill is written, it basically eliminates a lot of those guardrails, a lot of those protections, like the continuous eligibility for Medicaid. At the same time, it doesn't allow, because it says immediately upon enactment, us to wind this down in an effective way so that we don't have problems like the 20 percent cut for hospitals, eliminating continuous eligibility, free testing, free vaccines. There are so many things here that the public relies on--I didn't even mention the veterans, the nursing homes, the SNAP program--that, to me, it is reckless to say we are just going to end it immediately. Let's shelve this legislation. I suggest a ``no'' vote. Let the President and this administration wind this process down in an effective way to protect Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. As Mr. Takano said, so many things will immediately end needlessly from this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.