Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership and persistence on this critical matter. ``Mischaracterization,'' I think, is the word of the day. When you look back at the beginning of the discussions of health care, there's been more mischaracterizations of what was in the bill. But this bill that is before us, H.R. 4626, is only two pages--not 2,000, not 2 million--two pages, very clear and to the point. So what this bill seems to do--if I had my way, I would have brought this bill up when we discussed the beginning, back last summer. But I'm one person. To call them out, to call out the other side, and to call out the other end of the building. I mean, we've passed 290 pieces of legislation that they haven't even looked at yet. And this is critical. This is to end the anticompetitive, antitrust exemption. Now we have a new administration. Talk is cheap about how we're going to bolster antitrust laws. I haven't seen anything yet so far, but I'm hopeful. In all the industries in America, there are only two that have antitrust exemptions--baseball, America's pastime; and the health insurance industry, America's nightmare--and I think it's long past time we get rid of their exemption. Now, I've heard so many terms since the parties last summer, through the fall, through the winter, about uncompetitiveness. We want open markets. Now we look at the system, and it's price fixing and collusion over and over and over again. Ninety-four percent of the health insurance markets are concentrated. Here's what that means, Mr. Chairman. In every State of the Union, maybe, through the Chair, there's three or four companies that are selling insurance, that are writing insurance. This is why we are where we are today. No other reason. Because there is a lack of insurance. We have been accused of socialism. That is the biggest joke.

Mr. PASCRELL. We're talking about the biggest profits ever, just like Wall Street declared the biggest profit year they've ever had in 2009. That's interesting. We talk about we want to save the smaller insurance companies. We've saved nobody. In the last 60 years, all that we've done is concentrate power, and the result of it is higher cost to the average citizen that lives in my district and every district here on the floor. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Be persistent. Call the other folks out at the other end of the building and we'll see who really cares about the policyholders in this country.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. We who worked with Jack Murtha day in and day out really appreciated his deep respect for this institution. In a time when we see the demise of institutional respect and ritual, he enjoyed the ritual of this House, just as he enjoyed the ritual of serving his country as a marine. He enjoyed the ritual of marriage. He was honorable, he was devoted, and he was faithful; a faithful brother who served his country and asked nothing in return. Man, that is different in this city. Jack and I 7 years ago came together in two different paths in order to respond to our soldiers, our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles and fathers and mothers who were coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with the signature injury of those two wars: traumatic brain injury. No contusion, no blood, misdiagnosed, never diagnosed. And post-traumatic stress disorder. It was part of my official family. I knew it firsthand. And Jack said, Why don't we bring the civilian research and the military research together. So we set out. Can you imagine going into a war without having ready how we would help those soldiers coming back? Jack couldn't. And he did something about it. When you go to Walter Reed Hospital, a hospital that was supposed to be closed, if you remember, 4 years ago, and you see the state of the art, he did not give up on those soldiers, many of whom would be dead if it were not for what he did in getting the resources so that the state-of-the-art treatment for our soldiers would be there. To his friends on both sides of the aisle, let us remember when Jack would come to the microphone, and it wasn't often, but he came to the microphone during appropriations time, and he would say many times to me, Billy, watch how quick I'm there and I'll be gone. And you would think the chairman would want to give a dissertation. But he had done his homework. There were no speeches that were necessary. He did not mention platitudes. It was honor, duty, and then a nonpretentious exit. Good friend, you are not gone. We will remember you and we love you.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record that yesterday I missed the two rollcall votes of the day. Unfortunately I missed these votes because I was detained in my district. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 49, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--H.R. 4425--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New York, as the Martin G. Marty Mahar Post Office. Lastly, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 50, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--H.R. 4238--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, as the W.D. Farr Post Office Builiding.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record that yesterday I missed the two rollcall votes of the day. Unfortunately, I missed these votes because I was detained in my district. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 969 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended--H. Res. 779-- Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month. Lastly, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 970 On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree--H. Res. 942-- Commending the Real Salt Lake soccer club for winning the 2009 Major League Soccer Cup.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for 8 years, President Bush's administration looked the other way as Wall Street exploited our financial system and ignored mounting risks. This failure to regulate our markets led to Wall Street gambling with America's livelihood and compromised our families' futures and savings. Here we go again, making the tough choices that are necessary to bring our economy back from the brink of disaster. This great Nation is suffering the consequences of a period in our history where living beyond our means plagued not only American consumers but also those on Wall Street whose greed compelled them to take indefensible risks. The market failed us. It certainly wasn't a free market. It's beyond a ``minor adjustment.'' Wall Street reform is a critical step as we turn the tide and change not only how we deal with our financial sector but also where we lay to rest 8 years that marked the most fiscally irresponsible period in our Nation's history. As we rebuild our economy, we must put in place commonsense rules to ensure Wall Street cannot jeopardize our recovery again.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. If we do nothing, then 44,400 estates that are not currently subject to the estate tax will become targets. The point I want to make now is that many estates have paid no taxes. That is not shared responsibility. Under our bill, only the top 7,600 estates in the country will be subject to the estate tax in 2011. The truth of the matter is that I don't know any working class American families that own estates worth over $7 million. It is insidious to infer anything different.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Pomeroy. I stand before you to support H.R. 4154. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want you to believe, and we have heard this before, that everybody is going to pay an estate tax. If you listen to the rhetoric, and I am glad we are looking at the world. I am glad we are looking at the world, and we will find out on the health issue we are now 40th in terms of infant mortality. But let's look at the world. You are incorrect and it is very unfair when you claim that this is a tax for all Americans--it is not--and all family businesses. It is not. In fact, it is American to act on shared responsibility. The Citizens for Tax Justice just recently made this very clear, December 2: It follows that it is reasonable to tax the transfer of enormous estates, most of which consist of income that was never taxed. That's what you are protecting, the folks that have estates that have never been taxed. You want to throw a shield over them to protect what you did protect in 2001, which you did protect in 2003. You want to protect it from one generation of superrich families so they can send it on to another group. Since 1990s, opponents of the tax have even used the pejorative term ``death tax.'' But they are flat out wrong. The estate tax affects only estates of significant size--presently, right now, over $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples. The fact is that the estate tax is the most progressive tax in our Federal tax system. What you are suggesting is very regressive. Only the top 0.2 percent of the income earners paid all of the estate taxes collected.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memories of the four brave officers whose lives were needlessly cut short this past week in Washington State. All four officers were members of the Lakewood Police and were slain while preparing for their shift by Maurice Clemons, a career criminal who had been paroled from prison earlier this decade and was later killed by a Seattle police officer after a long manhunt. We stand with all the police officers in Washington State who despite losing four of their own served with distinction and bravery to bring this killer to ``justice.'' I have long maintained that our first responders are the first line in our country's national defense. They are out there on the streets every day keeping our communities and our children safe from harm. This resolution describes violence against law enforcement officers as ``particularly heinous,'' which I think is an understatement. This kind of violence against these brave community servants is not only heinous, it's unimaginable, horrific, and unacceptable. The Federal Government must do more to protect our police officers from these kinds of violent and malicious criminals. Congress must look at the ways we can strengthen the penalties for these kinds of horrific crimes committed against our heroes. Our police officers are out there every day sticking their necks out for us, and we owe it to them to do everything in our power to protect them as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. To rein in spending while recognizing the value of primary care is a necessary foundation to true reform. Without it, it's like building our house on a foundation of sand that not only jeopardizes access to care for 45 million seniors and individuals with disabilities but also has important consequences for our entire physician workforce.

Mr. PASCRELL. First thing we have to get straight here is that the past administration masked the costs of our one-sided tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, unpaid for; masked the costs of two wars, never in the base budget; masked the costs of taking care of our returning brave soldiers. You have been the masters of masks. And now you're advising Democrats? Case closed. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote on legislation for which many of us here have hoped for years, a permanent solution to the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. I implore my colleagues to set aside partisan bickering. Each year for the past 7 years, both Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses have stepped in to preserve seniors' access to care by preventing steep cuts to physician payments. Each year. The sustainable solution before us today deserves bipartisan support. If we're truly serious about enacting comprehensive health reform then we will pass this vital legislation. Providing a realistic, long-term solution that embraces a legitimate effort to rein in spending while recognizing--

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. I have always said that real homeland security starts on the streets of our local towns and not in the hallways of Washington. I truly believe these FIRE grants awarded to local municipalities are key to our homeland security infrastructure. Today we move a great step toward furthering that commitment. And just today, Mr. Chairman, on the west lawn outside the Capitol, firefighters, police officers and construction workers who responded at 9/11 gathered to hear what the Congress was going to do to respond to what had happened at 9/11. We salute them. We've had two major studies from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. The ``all clear'' should not have been given to these people who worked in hazardous situations. We can again down the road to pass legislation to help these guys and gals that have suffered the consequences of their responding mostly, voluntarily. I thank all of those who participated today.

Mr. PASCRELL. I want to thank Chairman Bart Gordon; Subcommittee Chairman Dave Wu; Mr. Mitchell; Chairman Thompson; and my friend who is not here today on the other side, Peter King. They all deserve recognition as partners in this quest to get people's attention on the most neglected side of the public safety equation, our firefighters. This legislation, we think, is unique. We had a difficult time in the beginning when were writing this legislation. It took about 2\1/2\ years. We had about enough people to fit in a telephone booth. And then we brought the firefighters to Washington, and all of a sudden, we had over 280 sponsors. In the 106th Congress, prior to, the former speaker just pointed out, 9/11, that FIRE Act passed. It had bipartisan support. There was no Federal support for our brave firefighters, be they career or volunteer. They were working with outdated equipment. In some places in the country, they had to push the equipment to the fire, literally. They couldn't get the necessary training in order to provide the best protection for their local communities. The one thing we made sure we took care of is that there would not be a differential, there would not be a firewall, so to speak, between the volunteers and the career. If you look at the grants of the first 5 or 6 years, there is an over-preponderance of volunteer departments, because we did not want to make this what so many bills in the past had been. And I might add, Mr. Chairman, this money goes directly to the communities, no skimming, no nonsense: $6.5 billion, both of these bills, the SAFER bill, which deals with our personnel, in 9 years, over $15 billion requested. We are far from even close to responding to the needs that existed before 9/11. This legislation, in its ranking and review, the FIRE Grants program itself received the second highest rating of any program in the Department of Homeland Security. The only agency that beat it out by one percentage point was the Secret Service. Since the inception of the FIRE and SAFER grants, the programs have provided over, as I said, $6.5 billion for our local communities. And the point I want to make here is that the FIRE Grants programs are as vital and necessary today as they were in 2000.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as co-chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I would like to share my understanding of the intent of the provisions of H.R. 3962--the Affordable Health Care for America Act--regarding the coverage of the treatment continuum for persons with brain injury. News reports of returning veterans and recent high profile brain injury stories indicate what researchers have been reporting for years: brain injury is a leading public health problem in U.S. military and civilian populations. I believe that any health care reform initiative must recognize that brain injury is not an event or an outcome but is the beginning of a lifelong disease process that impacts brain and body functions. These impacts of brain injury can result in difficulties in physical, communication, cognitive, emotional, and psychological performance, undermining health, function, community integration, and productive living. Brain injury is also disease causative and disease accelerative because it predisposes individuals to re-injury and the onset of other conditions. The Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA) has developed a series of guiding principles for assessing any health care reform bill from a brain injury perspective. I believe, consistent with policy statements by the BIAA, that health care reform must address the unique health care needs of individuals with brain injury by recognizing that brain injury is the start of a lifelong disease process. As such, individuals with brain injury require access to a full continuum of medically necessary treatment--including rehabilitation furnished by accredited programs in the most appropriate treatment setting as determined in accordance with the choices and aspirations of the patient and family in concert with an interdisciplinary team of qualified and specialized clinicians. I am pleased to conclude that the Affordable Health Care for America Act reflects and is consistent with these principles. Principle 1: An individual with a brain injury should have an individualized medical treatment plan that documents specific diagnosis-related goals for individuals with a reasonable expectation of achieving measurable functional improvements through the provision of sufficient treatment. Under the bill, payment for items and services included in the essential benefits package should be made in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical and other appropriate clinical or professional practice. In addition under the bill, a qualified health benefits plan may not impose any restriction (other than cost-sharing) unrelated to clinical appropriateness on the coverage of the health items and services included in the essential benefits package. Consistent with medical, clinical, and professional practice, appropriateness should be determined based on the unique needs of the individual with brain injury and treatment should be of sufficient scope, duration, and intensity. Principle 2: An individual with brain injury should have access to the full treatment continuum to manage the disease. This continuum includes (1) early, acute treatment to stabilize the condition and (2) acute and specialized post-acute brain injury treatment and rehabilitation to minimize and/or prevent medical complication, recover function and cope with remaining physical or mental disabilities, and achieve long-term outcomes that maintain an optimal level of health, function, and independence following brain injury. These post-acute services include inpatient, outpatient, day treatment, and home health programs. I believe that for individuals with disabilities such as brain injury, rehabilitation and habilitation is equivalent to the provision of antibiotics to a person with an infection--both are essential medical interventions. I am pleased to report that under the bill, the essential benefit package includes, among other things, hospitalization, outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, professional services of physicians and other health professionals, prescription drugs, mental health and substance use disorder services (including behavioral health treatments), rehabilitative and habilitative services, and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and relates supplies. The term ``rehabilitative and habilitative services'' includes items and services used to restore functional capacity, minimize limitations on physical and cognitive functions, and maintain or prevent deterioration of functioning as a result of an illness, injury, disorder, or other health condition. Such services also include training of individuals with mental and physical disabilities to enhance functional development. Principle 3: Individuals with brain injury should receive treatment in the most appropriate treatment setting by accredited programs-- including acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, residential rehabilitation facilities, day treatment programs, outpatient clinics and home health agencies. The treatment and treatment setting should be determined in accordance with the choice and aspirations of the patient and family in concert with an interdisciplinary team of qualified and specialized clinicians. I am pleased to report that under the bill payment for items and services included in the essential benefits package should be made in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice. The bill also requires adequacy of provider networks in order to ensure enrollee access to covered benefits, treatments, and services under a qualified health benefits plan. Rehabilitative and habilitative services should be available from a full continuum of accredited programs and treatment settings at a level of intensity that is consistent with the needs of the patient. Principle 4: The bill should prevent private insurance systems from delaying or denying treatment as a means of transferring the burden of brain injury care to taxpayers at federal, state and local levels; ensure that both public and private health insurance systems meet the health care needs of people with brain injury; and avoid using Medicaid and Medicare as the first option for the coverage of people with brain injury. I am pleased to report that the bill includes numerous requirements reforming the health insurance marketplace that should prevent private insurance systems from delaying or denying treatment for individuals with brain injury. These reforms include (1) prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions, (2) requiring guaranteed issue and renewal, (3) requiring nondiscrimination in health benefits or benefit structure, (4) requiring adequacy of provider networks, (5) limiting cost-sharing, and (6) prohibiting the imposition of annual or lifetime limits on coverage. I believe that these provisions will help prevent private insurance from delaying or denying treatment to persons with brain injury. Finally, the bill includes provisions regarding modernized payment initiatives and delivery system reform under which the Secretary may use innovative payment mechanisms and policies to determine payment for items and services under the public health insurance option, including bundling of services. Separate provisions are included in the bill regarding post-acute care bundling under Medicare. BIAA, in a recent submission to the chairs of the Education & Labor, Ways & Means, and Energy & Commerce Committees, commented that post-acute payment systems must facilitate, not impede, improvements in functional status of individuals with brain injury and their ability to return to their homes and communities. BIAA supports a deliberative planning process and rigorous pilot testing. According to BIAA's comments, the deliberative process should determine whether post-acute care bundling should exempt diagnoses such as brain injury, that are of low predictability and highly complicated; establish certain minimum requirements for any bundling proposal such as ``any willing provider'' in the bundled payment system; and test innovative payment methods that make payments directly to non-hospital-based treatment centers, including residential rehabilitation facilities specializing in the treatment of brain injury. I believe that the deliberative process should address each of these issues. I also believe that the adoption of alternative innovative payment mechanisms and policies must be guided by the goals included in the bill--improving health outcomes, reducing health disparities, providing efficient and affordable care, addressing geographic variation in the provision of health services, preventing or managing chronic illness, and promoting care that is integrated, patient- centered, quality, and efficient. I remain wary of mechanisms that bundle post-acute care to acute care hospitals for patients with complex and highly unpredictable diagnosis and health outcomes, like brain injury and other catastrophic conditions. Such payment systems should not impede, rather than facilitate, improvements in functional status and should not result in premature return to homes and undue levels of preventable disability without adequate facilitation of progression through necessary step down levels of treatment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I could not be prouder that H.R 3962 expands coverage to 96 percent of Americans in a fiscally responsible manner. I strongly believe that all interested parties should indeed have a stake in this necessary effort, but I would like to recognize the contribution asked of the biopharmaceutical industry. New Jersey has often been called the Medicine Chest for the World and for good reason. Last year, the biopharmaceutical and medical technology industries employed nearly 60,000 individuals in the state of New Jersey--with another 88,000 ``spin-off' jobs through the purchase of goods and services, capital construction projects, and other industry activity. H.R. 3962 extends Medicaid rebates to Medicare dual-eligible and low- income subsidy beneficiaries while instituting a new 50 percent discount for Part D beneficiaries who find themselves in the prescription drug benefit coverage gap--the so-called ``donut hole.'' Pharmaceutical sales represent about 10 percent of national medical expenditures, but the savings generated from these provisions represent a disproportionately larger share of the legislation's savings and revenues. There is little doubt that these industries are sure to see increased sales both as millions of previously uninsured Americans and millions more who were underinsured are given access to meaningful health insurance that covers prescription medications and as seniors with expanded Part D coverage better adhere to the prescription regimens prescribed by their doctors. However, I have lingering concerns that a single industry may be paying more than their fair share and that this may have unfortunate consequences in New Jersey. The biopharmaceutical manufacturers in my state have estimated that as many as 12,300 jobs could be lost in New Jersey. I believe that H.R. 3962 is an effort that will indeed create new jobs in the health care sector both as the demand for health care providers increases and as the result of a new pathway for the development of follow-on biologics, and I applaud the legislation for taking steps to close the Medicare Part D donut hole. However, we must recognize there will be consequences for New Jersey's biopharmaceutical industry, and I express my hope that these consequences will be minimized as the House and Senate come together to formulate a compromise health reform package.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I and others have spoken at length on the ways that the Affordable Health Care for America Act will improve health care for all of our constituents. Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle: this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology, and research in the United States. First, H.R. 3962 will create enormous demand for health care workers, especially in the area of primary care. Expanding meaningful health insurance coverage to the millions of Americans in this country who are currently uninsured or underinsured will allow them to see the primary care providers and receive the wellness and preventive care they have been denied for too long. This influx of new patients will need the doctors, nurses, and technicians necessary to deliver the care they need--while reducing overall health care costs as we prevent more expensive emergency care and hospitalizations. I support channeling resources that for too long have been used to treat people once they become sick into jobs and services that will prevent people from getting sick in the first place. Second, the Affordable Health Care for America Act will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it. New health care exchanges and new demands on the health system to provide high-quality and cost-effective care will create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology. They will be incentivized to create and develop products that will be a win-win for Americans--high quality health care at an affordable price. Third, H.R. 3962 will create high quality research opportunities for America. The legislation under consideration establishes a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to an area that is a key to the future of our health care system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reduce costly invasive procedures and allow our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives. The creation of this new class of medicines comes with requirements for new clinical research and testing, especially in the area of new biosimilars' interchangeability with innovator products. This research will create high quality and high paying jobs, and it is imperative that we keep this research and these jobs in this country. The Inspector General of Health and Humans Services is currently investigating the amount of data received from overseas clinical trials. We cannot allow these research opportunities to leave this country, and I intend to work with the Secretary of HHS and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the clinical studies to support the safety and interchangeability for this new class of follow-on biologics is conducted in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I do not view this legislation as a cost or drain on the economy of our country like so many of its opponents on the other side of the aisle. Instead, the Affordable Health Care for America Act is an exciting opportunity to create the kinds of jobs we so desperately need in this country while improving the lives of ALL Americans. H.R. 3962 will improve health care, create jobs, and grow our economy.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, no one believes the loyal opposition that Democrats don't care about seniors. Need I provide a history lesson 101 here? Today is when we must ask ourselves the real reason we came to Congress. Was it to fulfill the hopes of the people, or to take the path of least resistance? The easy thing would be to say the problem is too big, the interests are too aligned, and then maintain the status quo. The hard thing is to bring everybody together, make the compromises that need to be made, and give the American people true health care reform that will carry our country through for generations. This is the same choice that was laid before the Members of the 89th Congress when they voted on the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. And where would we be today as a nation had those Members simply succumbed to the difficulty of making real change? Where would we be today? Where would we be in mortality? Where would we be with the seniors who were sick and poor at that time without those two programs? We are now 40th among the industrial nations in infant mortality. When will we wait to have our consensus? We need this reform. Let us not leave another generation to wonder what we could have been. Let's pass historic legislation that provides the promise of affordable health care for every American today and the generations to come.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about a friend of mine, Kelly Conklin, who owns a small business in New Jersey, since that is what we have been hearing from many of my friends on the other side. It is a small woodworking business. Each year, Kelly has to determine the best set of benefits at the best price based on his employees and their needs. Unfortunately, the options dictated to him by an insurer leave him with very few choices. He has zero negotiating power. That is why the exchange is a great idea for small businesses to deal with the problems, because offering coverage is the right thing for him to do and the best way for him to attract the most skilled employees. Kelly is literally at the whim of his insurer. For 2010, he faces a 35 percent increase in premiums. How in God's name can we justify this by a bill that the other side has presented that is cheap because it doesn't do anything?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, we must remember also--I think you would agree with me, Mr. Chairman--that nowhere in this legislation are we in any manner, shape or form jeopardizing the private plans of any facility, any chemical facility.

Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, no one is eligible to receive damage awards. Lawyers will not receive a dime of any civil penalties that the courts may award because they are paid to the United States Treasury. I don't think that this is a Treasury scheme by any stretch of the imagination. This bill is not the first time citizen suits have been authorized in a national security context. Since the passage of the Bioterrorism Act in 2002, citizen suits have been available to enforce the requirements of section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is focused on security at drinking water facilities throughout the United States of America. By the way, to my other friend from Texas, this is very standard language that is used throughout this legislation. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things here. First, the groups that I mentioned before support that part of the legislation which I mentioned. Number two, let's get to the meat and potatoes: this bill does not create a boon for trial lawyers. No one is eligible to receive damage awards in lawsuits under this bill.

Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, this bill does not authorize suits by uninjured parties. Article III of the Constitution is very, very clear. It requires that any person who files a lawsuit be able to show injury. H.R. 2868 will have no effect on this constitutional requirement whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress cannot pass a law changing this requirement. So it's in the Constitution. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of this country. I oppose this amendment. It works against government accountability and against the security of our chemical facilities. Title I of H.R. 2868 allows citizens to file suit against the Secretary of Homeland Security for failing to meet her duties, such as issuing regulations or reviewing site security plans in a timely manner, in other words, if the Secretary, whomever that may be, does not do what he is supposed to do according to law. Are you putting our citizens in further jeopardy? Is this what you think of the American citizens that they cannot speak for themselves? This bill does not allow citizens to file suit against privately owned chemical facilities for alleged violations. Here is the bill. On pages 66, 67, 68, it doesn't say it. I don't know what you're reading. Therefore, this bill will not compel a chemical facility to turn over sensitive security information in court. It will not put this information at risk of public disclosure. Moreover, citizens cannot file suit against the Secretary for making a decision that is discretionary. It is very different from what the Constitution is talking about, such as whether to require a facility to switch chemicals or processes. Any claims to the contrary are simply false. This amendment would strip citizen enforcement out entirely. Why would we want to discourage the enforcement of these critical security standards? The American Chemical Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and its affiliate, and the environmental and labor groups have endorsed the citizen enforcement provisions in this bill. I rest my case. With that breadth of support for the compromise, this amendment is an ineffective solution for a nonexistent problem. The members of the Energy and Commerce Committee devoted considerable time to crafting a solution that ensures government accountability while protecting sensitive information. Eliminating citizen suits without replacement is unnecessary. It undermines accountability, and it will leave our Nation less secure. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. McCaul's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to Brother McCaul's amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.