Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee from New Jersey for his great work on this and so many other issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the continuing resolution and especially to highlight a very important short-term provision in here that provides certainty for children, families, and States that rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. This adjustment, which was introduced by Mr. Costello from Pennsylvania and Mr. Emmer from Minnesota, will provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with greater flexibility over existing dollars so that the agencies can ensure that CHIP programs across the country, including now in my home State of Oregon, can continue to have vital Federal funding that they need this month to continue CHIP. This emergency funding will help families and States while Congress finishes the job of providing funding for children's health insurance, public health priorities, our community health centers, Medicare extenders that seniors rely on. All that work needs to get done. It is important to note, we did not arrive at this place of needing a stopgap funding resolution because this House failed to act. We acted. We did our part. We did our part. I am disappointed that the House has passed CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act, which passed this Chamber a couple months ago with bipartisan support, has yet to be hammered out in the Senate. Of course, over there they need 60 votes to get anything done. So a minority of the minority can lock things up, which they have done. What makes the inaction on CHIP even more frustrating is that the House-passed bill mirrors the bipartisan policy framework that was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee under the able leadership of Chairman Hatch more than 2 months ago. Unfortunately, though, again, Democrats over there have failed to agree on how to fund these programs. That is different than what we did. Here in the House, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act delivers high- quality healthcare, peace of mind to millions of Americans, providing 5 years of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is one of the longest extensions ever for the program.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, it would mean continued access to healthcare for approximately 9 million children across the country who are enrolled in CHIP, another 122,700 in Oregon alone. Our House bill was fully funded. We did the heavy lift. We funded it through responsible reforms like asking seniors who make $40,000 a month, that is $480,000 a year, to pay about $135 more for their Medicare. Rich seniors pay a little more, and I am sure these grandmothers and grandfathers would do that to help kids afford their health insurance, and that is what happened here. Mr. Speaker, we paid it. It is ready to go. We need the Senate to act. I commend the Appropriations Committee and the leadership there for putting this provision in so we won't let kids fall through the gap.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017, sponsored by our fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley). We thank him for his leadership on this. I especially want to thank John Shimkus, the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for his leadership in getting this done, along with Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko, who played key roles, along with other members of the committee to bring this legislation to the floor and bring it here with unanimous support from the Energy and Commerce Committee. What are brownfields? Well, they are vacant, underused, and often contaminated properties that are a blight on local communities across our Nation. The EPA's brownfields program is a successful, results- oriented program, and it provides grants to assess and clean up these polluted areas. Since the brownfields program's inception, more than 27,000 contaminated sites have been remediated, allowing communities across the country to return them to productive use. Cleaning up brownfields sites increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth and wage increases, promotes the development of new infrastructure, improves and protects the environment--all really good public policy goals. Over 129,000 jobs have been leveraged because of the brownfields program, and almost 70,000 acres have been made ready for reuse. The brownfields program has leveraged over $24 billion, a significant return on the Federal investment in the program. I read somewhere it was a 16-to-1 rate of return based on Federal investment compared to what we get out of the program. A 2017 study concluded that cleaning up brownfield properties led to a residential property value increase of up to 15 percent within a mile of these brownfield sites. Another study found an estimated $29 million to $97 million in additional tax revenues for local governments in a single year after the cleanup, which is two to seven times more than the $12.4 million the EPA contributed to the cleanup of those brownfields. So, property values go up, local tax revenues go up, communities are improved, and we create jobs with this very important program. In my home State of Oregon, we have had a very active and effective brownfields program, and we have seen some great success in my own district. The Old Mill District in Bend--which is pictured here; this is the site of an old lumber mill--was one of those sites. It is easy to see--as the debris was here and the mill was crumbling and we lost all of those jobs--it was transformed into this incredible place with great recreation. With the reopening of the Deschutes River, we have movie theaters and restaurants and offices and residential housing all in this complex now, and it is a showplace. It is a gem of Deschutes County. Bend isn't alone. In The Dalles, where I was born, Google broke ground on an expansion to their data center there on 26 acres of former mill land that was cleaned up under this program. That expansion of the Google data center is a $600 million investment, expected to create 50 new jobs. Also, in my hometown of Hood River, the Port of Hood River just finished a brownfields cleanup of another former mill site. That opened up 12 acres of land for future business opportunities in the area. And in southern Oregon, the city of Grants Pass is in the early stages of working towards a similar goal. They have successfully secured assistance through the brownfields program to begin planning the cleanup and redevelopment of the old Spalding Mill site. The Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously voted to move this bipartisan legislation out of the committee. We worked closely with our friends and colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make additional improvements on the way to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the authorization for the brownfields program expired in 2006. It is well past time we do our job as Congress to modernize and reauthorize successful programs like this. At the end of the day, this bipartisan legislation creates jobs, promotes infrastructure and economic development, and cleans up our communities. It is a winning scenario for everyone involved. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who put so much time and effort into modernizing this program, and I urge them all to support H.R. 3017 as we pass it into law.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Senate Committee on Armed Services from the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, November 14, 2017. Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC. Senator Jack Reed, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed: Thank you for your commitment to our Nation's service members and for your leadership in enhancing the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) medical countermeasure authorities and collaborations with the Department of Defense (DoD). FDA shares your goal of protecting our Nation's military service men and women by advancing safe and effective medical products, strengthening our partnerships with the DoD on behalf of our Nation's warfighters, and ensuring that this critical work is prioritized by the Agency. Our Nation's troops face unique risks on the battlefield, and my colleagues and I at the Agency are committed to implementing a lasting framework that not only considers these unique risks, but prioritizes the warfighters' needs by expediting the development and review of medical countermeasures needed in the face of emerging threats. The bipartisan bill that will be considered alongside the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 would codify these commitments to ensure that the warfighters' needs for safe and effective medical countermeasures are met on a priority basis and in strong partnerships with DoD. For instance, I believe this new authority and enhanced collaborations with DoD will help enable FDA to approve freeze dried plasma as soon as 2018, addressing a key medical priority. Further, it will put in place a permanent process for strong engagement between FDA and DoD on any future medical products DoD determines are necessary to address military emergencies. Additionally, under these provisions, FDA would be able to recognize military threats in advance and provide an emergency use authorization for a fuller range of medical products that could help save lives on the battlefield. Thank you again for your dedication to our Nation's service members and for working with FDA on this meaningful framework to better serve and protect our warfighters. Please be assured that I am personally committed to this effort. I will make it one of my highest priorities as Commissioner to rapidly implement the framework that is called for under this legislation and work with my colleagues at FDA and DoD to create an enduring pathway for the efficient development and prioritization of products intended to help save the lives of military personnel on the battlefield. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me as we implement these new authorities. Sincerely, Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who I believe is also a West Point graduate. We appreciate his counsel, and I concur. I appreciate working with the House Armed Services Committee and its very able chairman, my friend, Mac Thornberry. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, a doctor himself and a veteran.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform have put their lives on the line for this country, and they deserve to have the earliest possible access to medical products that could save their lives on the battlefield. H.R. 4374 will establish important new authorities for the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, and the Department of Defense, DOD, to ensure that our warfighters have the benefits of new treatments and new devices. Mr. Speaker, currently the FDA has the authority to authorize the emergency use of an unapproved medical product for a specific set of military emergencies. They have that authority. This emergency use authority requires two things, though. First, the Secretary of Defense must make a determination that there is a risk of attack on military forces with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent. Next, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must make a declaration that there is, in fact, an emergency or threat justifying the emergency use authorization of a product. To ensure there are no unnecessary delays in this process, this legislation, H.R. 4374, establishes a deadline for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Once the Secretary of Defense makes a declaration of an imminent risk of attack, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 45 days--that is the maximum--to make a declaration that such a risk exists. Limiting the threat under which an emergency use can be authorized to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, frankly, has been too narrow to incorporate all the serious threats of harm to our troops. To address this problem, H.R. 4374 establishes a new category under which the emergency use authorization process can be triggered. H.R. 4374 expands this authority to include situations where the Secretary of Defense makes a determination that there is risk of attack with any agent that may cause an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to the United States military forces. In addition to creating new pathways for emergency access to unapproved medical devices, H.R. 4374 also creates a new breakthrough designation to expedite actual FDA approval of medical products for military emergencies. Currently, the breakthrough pathway exists only for products intended to treat serious, life-threatening conditions where the Secretary determines such a product may demonstrate significant improvement over existing therapies. Mr. Speaker, this expedited approval is based on the successful breakthrough designation created by Congress back in 2012. This has worked. It has accelerated oncology drug reviews by more than 2 years. Now, in short, H.R. 4374 addresses the critical issue of military access to the newest available products by expanding the circumstances under which emergency use authorizations can be issued and by establishing an expedited pathway to full approval of products that the Secretary of Defense requests. Mr. Speaker, policies in this bill are bipartisan. They were developed with the input from the administration as well as the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate. Additionally, CBO has indicated that H.R. 4374 will have no impact on direct spending or revenue. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not only a good bill, it is an important bill for our men and women in uniform, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4374. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4374) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war, and for other purposes.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a terrific member of our Conference and of the Armed Services Committee, again, a practitioner of medicine, a saver of wounded people, including our own whip of the House.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey as we work on this together. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), chairman of our Subcommittee on Environment and a veteran himself. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a great public servant who has served our Nation, I think, in two different uniforms and is a terrific member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues the importance of this legislation. We found a good balance with our friends in the Armed Services Committee and in working with the FDA and with the leadership of the Pentagon to get this right. What matters most to Americans is that we take care of our warriors on the field when they are injured, and when they are in harm's way that we are doing the best possible thing we can for them. Mr. Speaker, I think this is important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention, first of all, to page 17, line 23, of the bill because we have heard from those who oppose it that somehow this could adversely undermine the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, et cetera. Line 23 makes it very clear, ``No effect on other laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of'' these underlying and very important laws that protect our environment. So I just want to make sure that is in the Record. This is the current text of the bill we are voting on today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act. Hydropower plays an enormously important role in electricity generation across the country, and especially in my home State of Oregon. Hydropower generates 43 percent of electricity in my State. It is dependable base load, it is carbon-free, it is renewable, and it is very important to our region. Nationally, hydropower is one of the largest sources of renewable electricity generation. A recent Department of Energy report said that U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050. Thankfully, my good friend from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, introduced this legislation because, as these entities go to relicense, sometimes it costs tens of millions of dollars just to get a renewal of a government permit to continue to do what you have been doing, and it can take 7 to 10 years to work through the process. By the way, all those costs generally--guess who pays for them? The ratepayers. People paying their electricity bill end up paying for all this incredible, out-of-control review and regulation. As the committee worked on this legislation under the able hand of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Upton, we solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this. We made a number of changes to address the concerns. We had hearings, and we had lots of other individual discussions and roundtables. We added new provisions to ensure that States and Tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern. We also made sure that State and local governments could recoup the cost of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in the bill shall be construed to effect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environment laws. As a result, we find ourselves here today with bipartisan support for this legislation and the support of the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Electrical Workers, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, the Large Public Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, the National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, North America Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America--those most intricately involved in making sure we have reliable and clean base load hydropower. Support this modernization legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, sponsored by fellow Energy and Commerce committee member and our Conference Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Hydropower plays an integral role in generating electricity across the nation, especially back in my home state of Oregon. Hydropower generates nearly 43 percent of electricity in Oregon and this dependable baseload power has helped drive the development of everything from value-added agriculture processing to data centers, creating jobs along the Columbia River and throughout Oregon. Nationally, hydropower is the largest source of renewable electricity generation and a recent Department of Energy report found that U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050. However, as my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and across the country know, we are not taking full advantage of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, the duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the licensing process has raised significant challenges, preventing investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers. Thankfully, my good friend from Washington introduced this legislation to alleviate these problems and streamline the federal hydropower licensing process. The bill before us today didn't just emerge from thin air. It is the culmination of five committee hearings and markups, along with several bipartisan staff meetings with the hydropower industry and tribes that have a stake in the licensing proceedings. We solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this legislation and made a number of changes to address the concerns raised. We added new provisions to ensure that states and tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern. We also made sure that state and local governments could recoup the costs of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in this bill shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws. In recognition of the regular order committee process, H.R. 3043 sailed out of committee unanimously by voice vote. The supporters of this bill, especially labor and industry organizations, recognize the vital role it will play in supporting job growth, local economic development, and providing much-needed reforms to the licensing process. H.R. 3043 seeks to modernize the permitting process by improving administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency; requiring timely decision making; and by designating Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency is approving permits. You may be asking yourself, `why is this process in need of reform?' The answer is simple. As my colleague from Washington likes to point out, it can take up to 10 years or longer to license a new hydropower project of relicense an existing facility. Further underscoring the need for this legislation is the fact that by 2030, over 400 existing projects with over 18,700 megawatts of capacity will begin the relicensing process. Mr. Chair, this emissions-free energy resource should not be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape any longer. It's past time we modernize this grossly outdated licensing process, so we can get projects to market faster and streamline those projects in need of relicensing. At the end of the day, this important legislation promotes hydropower development, creates jobs, and provides consumers across the country with continued access to clean, affordable, and reliable baseload power generation. I include in the Record the Supporters of H.R. 3043: The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); (American Public Power Association (APPA); Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE); Edison Electric Institute (EEI), International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Boilermakers); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE); Large Public Power Council (LPPC); Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA); National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA); National Hydropower Association (NHA); National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA); North America Building Trades Council (NABTU); United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Carpenters).

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Wow. We are fully funding CHIP for 5 years. We are fully funding our community health centers for 2 years. We are taking care of programs for our citizens who have diabetes. And the pay-for that they are objecting to most is we are asking the wealthiest seniors in America, those making $40,000 a month, to pay $135 more for their Medicare so we can do this work that is so important. How ironic. How cynical. This is a pay-for that has been used before for other programs. President Obama himself suggested in a budget that, instead of the top earners, the $480,000 a year, a couple making over $800,000 a year pay a little more as we do here, take it all the way down to $80,000 a year. We didn't do that. We just said, if you are making $480,000 a year, roughly $40,000 a month, you will pay $135 more. They will not vote for that cut to fund children's healthcare. We will. That is what is going on here. This is where we could never get them off dead center to make this bipartisan. It is a tragedy this is not a bipartisan bill as it always has been. I, three times, delayed moving this forward, including crossing the deadline of September 30, to try to find common ground that would be bipartisan, and we could never get there because they would never yield in a way where we could find common ground. So we must go to the Senate from here and we must get our work done for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, once again, my dear friend from California has twice voted to use these Prevention Funds for other things. By the way, when we use them for community health centers, they are doing this work on the ground, helping people with opioid addictions and other healthcare issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, today, Members of this House can deliver peace of mind to parents of over 8 million low-income children who depend on the Children's Health Insurance Program. The House can extend funding for important public health programs, including resources for the critical work community health centers do in our communities and in my district and yours. This bill will help deliver much-needed healthcare resources to our friends and fellow citizens in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico. Yet we have heard complaints about how this package is paid for. Well, let us be clear how this bill funds healthcare for kids and important public health priorities like community health centers. In paying for this package, we have taken a fiscally responsible and reasonable approach. Our bill funds kids' healthcare by allowing States to dis-enroll lottery winners--these are winners making $80,000 or above--from the low-income Medicaid program. We ensure high-dollar lottery winners are removed from the Medicaid program so that those resources can go to Medicaid-eligible, low-income people in our districts. Our bill directs funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to finance important prevention and public health needs, like funding the National Health Service Corps, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, and community health centers. If these are not important programs for prevention, wellness, and public health, I don't know what are. Our bill before us today, which I predict will have bipartisan support, directs funds from the Prevention Fund for important public health priorities that have long had bipartisan support. We are using a bipartisan fund to pay for bipartisan healthcare support for health and wellness, which was its intent from the beginning. Most recently, nearly every House Republican and Democrat supported this idea just a year ago. Just a year ago, when we passed the 21st Century Cures Act, we said: Here is a health and wellness fund and a Prevention Fund that makes sense for cures, make sense for, we believe today, our community health centers, and for Children's Health Insurance. Our bill also asks the wealthiest among us, the 1 percent of beneficiaries, those making $40,000 a month, over half-a-million dollars a year--that is an individual--to pay a little more to help fund health insurance for low-income children. I think they are willing to do that, and I think we should be as well. On multiple budgets, President Obama said this is a reasonable way to pay for other priorities. That was bipartisan. It is bipartisan today. These reasonable pay-fors have been opposed by some in the Democratic leadership. Some House Democrats want to use children's healthcare and funding for community health centers as a bargaining chip for a bigger end-of-the-year goulash, yet kids and our frontline providers can't wait any longer. In just a few weeks, States like Minnesota run out of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. At the request of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have agreed to postpone it time and again, but time has run out. The negotiations did not end as we all hoped they would. But we can't wait any longer. It is time for this House to deliver peace of mind to the families that rely on these critical programs. It is time to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to approve the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. How cynical what we just heard. How cynical. Ms. Velazquez has 43,000 children in CHIP, $2 billion in DSH cuts in her district, 43 health centers, and she is going to vote against $1 billion for the citizens of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands because that is not enough. Yes, we need to do more, so her answer is vote ``no'' today and deny $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity. We work well together on lots of issues. He has also voted to use this Prevention Fund for other purposes in the past, as have I. We don't touch the Prevention Fund for 2018, and there is $400 million left in 2019, and billions thereafter for the very important programs the gentleman has articulated. We don't use all the money. We leave money behind for these other purposes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, may I get a time count, please, on how much each side has remaining?

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that the gentleman who just spoke has voted to cut the Prevention Fund before to use it for other purposes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I call on my next colleague, I just want to point out that, in Ms. Schakowsky's district, all we are talking about here is seniors making $41,000 a month--a month--would pay an extra 135 bucks so we can fully fund children's health insurance, community health centers. All these programs in here are funded. We use the Prevention Fund, which is not allocated out in the out-years. It is just a pot of money you can use for prevention and wellness. We actually use that to fund this as well. This is why we have been unable to reach agreement with the Democrats. It is sad they have made this partisan. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).