Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 361 would authorize grant recipients under the Homeland Security Grant or Urban Area Security Initiative Program to use funding to enhance medical preparedness and medical surge capacity.

Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency already permits grantees to use these funds for such purposes. However, enactment of this measure into law will give some predictability to the grant recipients as they struggle to build and maintain medical response capabilities at the State and local levels.

Over the course of the past year, our doctors, nurses, and emergency service personnel have responded to outbreaks of Ebola, measles, D68, and other contagious diseases.

Although none of these outbreaks were the result of bioterrorism, they nevertheless served as a reminder that medical preparedness is a critical component of our national preparedness.

I commend the gentleman from Florida for working with the Homeland Security Committee to make sure that medical preparedness continues to remain a priority at the Federal, State, and local level.

I would be remiss if I did not take this time and opportunity to express my support for the reauthorization of the Metropolitan Medical Response System, which would provide dedicated funds to medical preparedness activities.

I would also note that Members may be here today to discuss the use of grant funding, but overshadowing this debate is a more immediate obstacle to the effectiveness of DHS' grant programs: the fact that Congress has not passed a full-year funding for the Department of Homeland Security that the President can sign into law.

Mr. Speaker, I will place into the Record a Washington Post editorial piece entitled, ``GOP holds security hostage to immigration.'' It underscores the urgent need for gamesmanship over immigration to be put aside for the betterment of national security.

With respect to the measure before us today, I would note that, without funding, neither the Urban Area Security Initiative nor the State Homeland Security Grant Program will be working to build medical preparedness capabilities, or any other capability, at the State and local level.

Ask any first responder, and they will tell you: These grant programs are essential to building, maintaining, and exercising important preparedness capabilities.

Representing the 10th Congressional District, I have seen firsthand how these programs have bolstered capabilities, both in Newark and Jersey City. Delays or cuts to these programs only punish first responders and medical services personnel, and the citizens whom they are charged with protecting.

GOP Holds Security Hostage to Immigration

[By Editorial Board, February 1, 2015]

How far will Republicans in Congress take their reckless

flirtation with undermining government this time?

Will they, as seems increasingly likely, fail to pass a

bill that the president can sign ensuring adequate funding

for the Department of Homeland Security and its 280,000

employees before the agency's support expires Feb. 27? Are

they ready to let funding lapse, secure in the knowledge that

Border Patrol officers, Secret Service agents, airport

security personnel and other so-called essential employees

would still have to report to work--even though they would

not be drawing paychecks?

A number of prominent Republican lawmakers clearly believe

that denying funding to the nation's premier organ of

domestic security is no big deal, as long as the move

expresses the GOP's anger about President Obama's executive

actions on immigration.

As Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) put it to Politico:

Letting the department's funding lapse would not be ``the end

of the world.''

Mr. Diaz-Balart's complacency may come as news to Americans

concerned about the risk of terrorism in the wake of attacks

in Paris, Ottawa, Sydney and elsewhere. It certainly came as

news to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh C. Johnson, as well

as his three predecessors--Democrat Janet Napolitano and

Republicans Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge--all of whom have

warned GOP lawmakers not to conflate essential funding for

the department with the political fight over immigration.

House Republicans were deaf to such appeals. Last month,

they passed a bill furnishing the department with $40 billion

in funding through September, the end of the current budget

year. But they attached provisions to that bill, certain to

draw a presidential veto, that would kill the

administration's plan to temporarily protect several million

undocumented immigrants from deportation and repeal a

program, in force since 2012, that offers a similar shield to

people brought here illegally as children.

There is room for legitimate debate over the president's

most recent unilateral moves on immigration, which we happen

to agree represent executive overreach. If congressional

Republicans want to attack those actions responsibly, with

discrete legislation, they are free to try--though they are

unlikely to muster the votes to override a presidential veto.

However, it is another thing to wield their frustration

over immigration as a cudgel, holding hostage an entire

department of government that is critical to the nation's

security. That is as irresponsible as it is politically ill

advised.

On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

announced the body would consider the House bill this week, a

sign that the GOP is persisting with its game of chicken. The

bill is unlikely to attract the necessary 60 votes for

passage, which would require a half-dozen Democratic

defections. But there is no shortage of Republican lawmakers

who would rather try to antagonize the president than carry

out the workaday task of funding the government.

In the absence of a bill, the department's funding lapses

in less than a month. What happens in the intervening weeks

will indicate whether Republicans are more interested in

gamesmanship or governance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on my side. If my colleague on the other side is ready to close, I am as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act is a good bill, and it has my support.

The gentleman from Florida has given us a piece of commonsense legislation, and this is the type of legislation, when it comes to keeping our Nation safe during times of attack or natural disaster, that we need.

I also urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of a clean DHS funding bill so that the States and urban areas across the country can continue building and maintaining critical preparedness capabilities.

Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for working with us on this issue, and I congratulate him on a wonderful bill that ensures that our Nation continues to be prepared in times of disaster. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #51 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 361--Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #52 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 615--Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #53 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 623--Social Media Working Group Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #54 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 70, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #55 on H. Res. 70, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #57 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 596, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #58 on Passage of H.R. 596--To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care- related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #59 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 78, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #60 on H. Res. 78, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 50) Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #61 on Agreeing to the Cummings of Maryland Amendment to H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #62 on Agreeing to the Connolly of Virginia Amendment to H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #63 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #64 on Passage of H.R. 50--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #65 on Agreeing to the Schrader of Oregon Amendment to H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #66 on Agreeing to the Jackson-Lee of Texas Amendment to H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #67 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #68 on Passage of H.R. 527--Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act for two reasons.

First, the bill will save lives. Second, the legislation is necessary to support the vital work of first responders in the event of a biological and chemical terrorists attack or incident.

The legislation provides for the development and maintenance of an initial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, their families, and immediate victims from a chemical or biological event.

The Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act will amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for: enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities.

This legislation ensures that first responders have necessary medicines and treatments to protect themselves, their families and those within their vicinity immediately should a biological and chemical terrorist attack occur.

In short, first responders will not be able to do the work of saving lives if they fall victim to an attack or are distracted by worry regarding how their family may be fairing during a biological or chemical attack should one occur.

First responders often include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical personnel.

The city of Houston covers over a 1000 square mile region in Southeast Texas. It has an evening population of nearly two million people and over three million during the day when commuters are in the city.

There are 103 Fire Stations that serve the city of Houston with most offering ambulance or medic support, but there is only one station Number 22 that Specializes in Hazardous Material.

In the city of Houston one out of every ten citizens use Emergency Management Services (EMS) and within a year there are over 200,000 EMS incidents involving over 225,000 patients or potential patients.

EMS response services have 88 City of Houston EMS vehicles, with just under fifty percent staffed by two paramedics and can provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) to patients.

These consist of 15 ALS Squads, and 22 ALS transport units with eight functioning in a ``Dual'' capacity as both Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support (BLS).

The remaining fifty-one transport units are Basic Life Support (BLS), and staffed by two Emergency Medical Technicians.

Law enforcement agencies that serve the city of Houston include the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff's Department, Harris County Constables, Port of Houston Authority Police and Corrections Officers.

Because of the nature of chemical or biological terrorist attacks mass casualties are the objective and the impressive resources of our nation's 4th largest city would likely be overwhelmed immediately should an attack occur it is important to provide them with the resources provided by this legislation.

The prepositioning of resources in the form of medicines that can support pulmonary respiratory function or arrest neurological damage as a result of poisoning lives can be saved that could otherwise be lost. This bill can reduce deaths and give victims the greatest chance for survival and recovery.

Emergency responders because of this bill would have treatments in the communities where they serve and live to help neighbors, co- workers, and people who are immediate need to live saving help.

As a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I am mindful of the need for our first responders to be prepared and well trained to manage a wide range of potential threats both conventional and unconventional.

This bill offers one more resource that will be available to first responders to do the work they have dedicated their lives to doing-- saving lives.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 361 the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act for two reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) as well. I also want to thank the ranking member for doing such a great job and working on this piece of legislation.

I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act. This legislation would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that grant funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative may be used to enhance medical preparedness and purchase medical countermeasures.

I originally introduced the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act in 2012 after a series of hearings on medical countermeasures when I proudly served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications.

At these hearings, the need for this legislation was highlighted when we received numerous testimonies from the emergency response community on the importance of stockpiling medical countermeasures in the event of a WMD attack.

This includes predeployed medical kits for first responders, as Mr. Carter said, their families, and immediate victims of widespread terrorist attacks on our homeland and natural disasters, resources similar to those provided to postal workers participating in the national U.S. Postal Medical Countermeasures Dispensing Pilot Program.

The grant guidance for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative currently permits this funding to be used to procure medical countermeasures. It also allows for other medical preparedness and medical surge capacity equipment and activities.

However, this guidance is developed on an annual basis. There is no guarantee that these uses will be authorized in the future.

To be clear, as Mr. Carter said, no new funding is authorized in this bill. However, the expenditures authorized and codified by the bill we are considering today can make a big difference in protecting the public.

If we are not safe, Mr. Speaker, nothing else matters.

Codifying this authority will assist emergency responders in the event of an attack, providing certainty that grant funding may be used to support them now and in the future. We must have certainty.

I consistently find myself in awe of our first responders and the sacrifices that they make on the public's behalf. In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, such as the Boston Marathon bombing, I am committed to ensuring Congress fulfills its obligation to support those brave men and women responding to these various threats.

I thank my colleagues, Representative Susan Brooks and Representative Peter King, for being original cosponsors and for their continued support with this legislation. I would also like to commend the chairman of the full Homeland Security Committee, Chairman McCaul, for his leadership in making this initiative a priority and also for being a cosponsor of this good bill.

Finally, I would like to note that the Emergency Services Coalition for Medical Preparedness continues to endorse this bill and its intent.

The Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in the last two Congresses; however, the Senate never acted on this measure. With new leadership in the Senate, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that they can take this measure up quickly so that we can get this before the President to be signed into law.

We have a responsibility to ensure our communities are prepared, equipped, and capable of executing countermeasures for future terrorist threats and natural disasters. Passage of H.R. 361 would truly aid our first responders in this endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this great bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 361) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under existing grant guidance authorizing use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, introduced by my colleague and the former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, Congressman Bilirakis.

This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make it clear that grant funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative may be used to enhance medical preparedness and purchase medical countermeasures.

The grant guidance for these programs currently allows funds to be used for medical preparedness equipment and activities. This bill codifies those activities to ensure that they will continue to be allowable, and it will not cost any additional money to do so.

We have seen the benefits that grant funds, including those used for medical preparedness activities, have provided when it comes to response capabilities. This was clearly demonstrated in the response to the Boston Marathon bombings.

We know that the threat of a chemical or biological attack is real. We must ensure that our first responders have the tools and capabilities they need if such an event should occur.

As a result of this bill, grant funds could be used for items such as predeployed medical kits for first responders and their families, caches of equipment, training and exercises, and planning activities.

Identical language to H.R. 361 was approved by the Committee on Homeland Security last year by a bipartisan voice vote and passed the House by a vote of 391-2.

Mr. Speaker, as a pharmacist and someone whose coastal district lives under constant threat of hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, I know firsthand the benefits that these types of equipment and activities can provide for our first responders and the citizens that they protect.

I urge Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, this bill enjoyed

broad bipartisan support last Congress. I hope Members will once again express their support for the men and women who protect us every day by voting for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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