Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), another one of our new, wonderful Members.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fad, apparently, this week, is the idea of alternative facts. In other words, if politicians don't like the facts that they have been given or the reality of the situation, then what we should do is we should just come up with new facts; and apparently, the facts in this bill are that, apparently, the other side is worried about taxpayer funding for abortions. As we have said repeatedly, we don't like this on this side of the aisle, but right now, because of the annual Hyde amendment, there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. We aim to change that because it is probably the most regressive legislation that we have for women's health. It says that rich women can get the full range of healthcare services they need, including abortion; but poor women, the women least equipped to be able to raise unwanted children, and certainly not with help from this Congress, are the ones who cannot get those services that they needed. So I just want to say one more time because I keep hearing the alternative facts over and over, there are right now no taxpayer funding for abortions, something that we need to fix. But this bill takes us the opposite direction. What this bill does is it codifies the Hyde amendment in statute once and for all, and that would bar low- income women from receiving these much-needed services. It codifies the D.C. abortion ban, which would rob the D.C. City Council of giving the healthcare services D.C. women need, even with D.C. tax revenues. It codifies the Helms amendment, which is the same thing as the Hyde amendment for international programs. And perhaps the biggest ban here is it restricts people's ability to buy insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges with their own money that will cover abortion. I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and over again that there are a thousand policies. The lady from South Dakota said that government dollars were supporting abortive procedures. That is just simply not the case. There is no Federal money in the exchanges paying for abortive procedures. What this bill does is it greatly expands restrictions on women's ability with their own money to buy insurance policies with legal healthcare coverage that they feel that they need. And it says that if you get a subsidy, then you can't get a policy with your own money. That is a vast expansion, and it is well beyond the pale. It is also, by the way, beyond what the American public says. Because the American public, by 86 percent, says that if you are poor, then politicians should not put their personal views on you and you should be able to get the healthcare coverage that you need. We saw this with the millions of American women and men in Washington and around the country who marched this last weekend. But we see it in the polling. People say, if you are poor, you should be able to get the healthcare coverage you need, not what some politician in Washington tells you. I have an idea. Every year, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the time that the protestors come to Washington, I don't think that we should debate this futile exercise year after year. I think we should come together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to figure out how we can prevent unwanted pregnancies. I am getting ready to introduce a bill. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the Republican side, to cosponsor this bill. This bill will expand contraception and family planning services and long-range contraception for all American women so that we can prevent unwanted pregnancies. In Colorado, we have a program that is called LARC. And what it is is a program where the State helps teen and young women get long-acting contraception so they can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And here is what happened in Colorado when we enacted this very robust and helpful program. According to the data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, both the birth rate and abortion rate for women ages 15 to 19 fell 48 percent from 2009 to 2014 because of long-acting contraception, and the same was true for women of the next age group up. We can do this. We can do this together. Let's start talking about a way to improve women's health instead of to restrict their choices. Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Power And Security Systems, or PASS, Act. As Chairman Upton said, this bill will provide an important technical exemption for certain security and life safety products from energy efficiency standards set forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. As Mr. Upton said, a provision in the law increased the energy efficiency requirements for battery chargers and external power supplies, something which this side of the aisle very strongly supported. However, the provision also mistakenly included security and life safety products and required that they be manufactured with a standby mode despite being products that are inherently always on. Without providing this correction, the security industry will need to spend millions of dollars to comply with an energy standard that will yield no energy savings and could cost jobs, which, of course, was never the original intent of the law. I am pleased that my colleagues Representatives Welch and Brooks have reintroduced the bill, which the House passed last year but the Senate failed to move before the end of the last Congress. This is a commonsense and consensus fix to a simple problem. The language was developed by both industry and efficiency advocates, with technical assistance from the Department of Energy. It should come as no surprise that this bill enjoys broad support from the security industry and energy efficiency advocates. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge passage of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo my support for this important piece of legislation. This bill was passed last year on a bipartisan basis on a voice vote, in fact, but it was never taken up in the other body. This is becoming kind of a theme today. But, as Mr. Kennedy pointed out, if we can't move this through Congress in the next few weeks, families and small businesses may be left with electric bills that they cannot afford. So what we are really doing today is we are cleaning up some of the leftover important legislation from the last Congress that really needs to pass. Mr. Upton and I worked hard, along with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Welch and many other Members, on the 21st Century Cures bill last Congress. It was one of the last bills we passed on a bipartisan basis. I am happy that the Energy and Commerce Committee is getting a running start today in passing some of our key bipartisan legislation from last Congress, and I am hoping that this will be a bellwether for the rest of this Congress that we will continue in the grand tradition of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. And I hope that the Senate will work quickly so that we can send this important bill to the President's desk and we can stop those unanticipated rate increases.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 590, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2017, introduced by Representatives Latta and McNerney. This bill would enhance coordination between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy by requiring them to enter into a memorandum of understanding on issues related to advanced nuclear reactor technology. This is a worthy goal, as the chairman said, and is a commonsense way for the Federal Government to support the advanced nuclear power industry. Advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to generate power more safely and with less nuclear waste, which is why I believe the Federal Government should be supporting advancements in nuclear technology. The bill also requires NRC to develop an advanced reactor regulatory framework to evaluate options to expedite advanced reactor licensing and to make it more predictable. NRC would have 1 year from the date of enactment to submit this plan to Congress. In developing the plan, NRC must also seek input from interested stakeholders, which I believe to be a crucial part of this process. Nuclear energy must play a continued role in our country's clean energy future to enable us to reach our goals set forth in the Paris climate agreement. I believe the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act will enable the Federal Government to more efficiently evaluate and support these promising nuclear technologies, which can put us on a path towards greater reductions in carbon emissions. I commend both Representatives Latta and McNerney for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have any further speakers on this, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 518, the EPS Improvement Act. Last session of Congress, I cosponsored this bill with our former colleague Congresswoman Ellmers, and this year, Representatives Guthrie, Matsui, and Dent are joining me in this effort to strengthen the standards used to keep LED lighting safe and efficient. By ensuring that our country's energy conservation standards are up to date with the latest developments in high-tech lighting, we can remove obstacles to innovation without sacrificing safety. And as we heard from the chairman, if there has ever been a bill in Congress that was vetted, it was this one. We have been working on this bill for some years now, and, frankly, what it is doing is it is truly addressing unintended consequences that happened due to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That act defined external power supplies in a way that just simply did not anticipate the rapid growth and use of LED and OLED light sources during the decade that followed. Now, these lights are really energy efficient. They are up to 80 percent more efficient than traditional lights like fluorescent and incandescent lights, and 90 percent of the energy in LEDs is committed to illumination, while only 5 percent is heat; so it is no wonder they have become so popular in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, in the 2005 act, the standards did not allow for these types of lighting as their use continues to constitute an ever-growing share of our energy consumption. What this bill does is it clarifies the definition of ``external power supplies'' and it amends the conditions under which the Energy Department can undertake a rulemaking process in the future. The bill will facilitate the continued growth of LED lighting, and it will help lower energy prices for businesses and households both in my home State of Colorado and across America. Clean energy truly is the future. It can be safe, efficient, and affordable for all when it is properly regulated, and that is exactly what this legislation does. I urge everybody to support this act, and I hope that the Senate will pass it this year. We are getting a good, early start. Mr. Speaker, I have no one else to speak on this bill, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, so this panel was supposed to be set up to investigate the alleged sale of fetal tissue, which is illegal under current law. That didn't turn out so well. So now, as you can hear from the other side of the aisle, they are going after fetal tissue research itself, something that has been legal and used in an ethical way since the 1930s, something which has been used to find most vaccines and other cures for diseases in this country, something which a panel appointed by President Ronald Reagan, found unanimously in 1980 to be ethical. So I want to ask, Madam Speaker, what the heck are we being asked to spend another $800,000 on? The total funding for this witch hunt and this reckless endeavor is now more than $1.5 million. We have gone after women and punished them. We have gone after medical professionals and put their lives at risk, like what happened in my neighborhood of Colorado Springs, Colorado. We have put doctors and researchers on the line, and we have had a chilling effect on important biomedical research. I say enough is enough. We need to disband this select committee. We need to continue to make sure that we have ethical medical research in this country because, frankly, that will lead to the cures that affect diseases that affect millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, from its start, the Select Panel has been nothing but a partisan witch hunt. The apparent goal of the Select Panel is to punish and intimidate women medical professionals and researchers who are following the law. Through wanton use of subpoenas, inflammatory language and release of private information--including addresses and phone numbers where those wishing to harass health care providers can find them--the Select Panel as put many, many people at risk. It has also threatened life-saving research and health care that these people provide. Make no mistake: this threat is very real. Clinics are picketed and fire-bombed, doctors and their families are targeted at their homes, and some have even been murdered. Furthermore, the Select Panel is trying to force universities and clinics to turn over the names of their researchers, graduate students, lab and clinic staff and doctors--for no legitimate congressional reason. Not since Joe McCarthy have we seen such abusive pressure tactics to ``name names.'' The Select Panel is acting as judge, jury, and executioner and endangering lives. It is time for Speaker Ryan to disband this panel-- rather than let it gorge even more on taxpayer funds. Like the seventeen investigations that preceded it, the Select Panel has found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, other providers, researchers or the companies that facilitate life-saving research and health care for women. The Washington Post editorial board called on Speaker Ryan to disband the Select Committee months ago, noting that it ``has issued indiscriminate subpoenas, intimidated witnesses and relied on misleading information. It is abusing power at taxpayer expense, and Democrats are right to demand its shutdown.'' The paper added, ``There is no legitimate reason for this inquiry.'' The Select Panel is a waste of funds, an attack on women's rights, a danger to life-saving medical research and an abusive use of Congressional power for mere partisan gain. So Mr. Speaker, I say enough with the smear campaigns, fishing expeditions and endless stream of subpoenas. Congressional bullying to frighten women out of exercising their rights, and to drive researchers and healthcare providers out of business, has to stop. We in the minority have long called for the Select Committee to be disbanded before it does any more damage. I look forward to closing this shameful chapter in Congressional history at the end of this year.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 21st Century Cures Act, knowing that I am far from alone in supporting this bill. More than 700 groups representing patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and others have voiced support for the bill, as has the White House, which provided its enthusiastic endorsement last night. This is a watershed moment in this country for biomedical research. With this bill, we bring hope to millions of patients who suffer from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and a host of other ailments. As my cosponsor and partner in crime, Fred Upton, just said, we started working on this measure 3 years ago. We traveled the country together to gather information about much-needed reforms, and we had tremendous participation in the process from patient groups, medical professionals, academia, and Federal and State healthcare authorities, not to mention the entire Democratic and Republican membership of the Energy and Commerce Committee who worked so closely together to make this happen. All of this led to a bill that was passed in July, 2015, by 344-77. We can barely pass the Journal every day by that amount, Mr. Speaker. Now, this was in the summer of 2015, and we have worked tirelessly in a bipartisan way since then to improve and expand the bill and to make sure it can pass through the Senate and be signed by the White House. The result will help to overcome obstacles to medical progress from discovery to development to delivery through investing in innovation, incorporating the patient perspective, and modernizing clinical trials. Among the key provisions, this consensus version of the bill will provide $4.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health, including money for Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot initiative, including money for Precision Medicine and the BRAIN Initiative. It will provide almost $1 billion in grants to the States to address the urgent opioid crisis in this country. It removes the silos at the Food and Drug Administration by transitioning it to a disease-centric approach, and it gives $500 million so the FDA can implement these reforms. It includes all- important mental health legislation that we have also worked on so hard for so long, and it will catalyze cutting-edge research by supporting potentially transformative efforts. Mr. Speaker, at a time of heightened acrimony in Washington and in the wake of one of the most rancorous elections we have ever had, isn't it wonderful that we can come together to find cures that affect millions of Americans? Disease doesn't discriminate according to political party. It knows nothing of claims and counterclaims. It responds only to carefully developed treatments and cures. What we are doing today is we are voting to put vital innovations in biomedical research within reach, potentially saving countless lives. I urge all of our colleagues to think about the millions of Americans who will be heartened by this bill's progress, and I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the 21st Century Cures Act.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding me the time and for being an unerring partner on this quest that we have had. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about the extraordinary journey that we have had here. When Representative Fred Upton came up to me on the floor about 3 years ago and asked if I would help him work on a bill to help modernize and update the way we do biomedical research in this country, little did I realize the road that lay ahead. There have been a lot of twists and turns in that road. There have been some very interesting sightings along that road, and it has been an extraordinary effort for all of us. It has really brought the Energy and Commerce Committee together in a bipartisan way, and I am hoping that we can continue those efforts in the next Congress. So many of my colleagues are right. We still have a lot that we have to do in the area of mental health, in the area of biomedical research, and so much more. I want to thank a number of people because they really all deserve to be thanked: Of course, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, and Subcommittee on Health Ranking Member Gene Green and Chairman Joe Pitts. I want to thank the entire committee, as I said. I want to thank the patient advocacy community who have been with us unerringly throughout this process. I want to thank the researchers. I want to thank the entrepreneurs who came and talked to us about what they needed. I want to thank the agencies themselves, specifically the FDA and the NIH, for technical assistance, and the entire executive branch. I want to thank a number of people. First of all, I want to thank Lisa Cohen, my chief of staff, who has been with me for 20 years through thick and thin. I want to thank Polly Webster, my health policy director, who took the bar exam, got married, and actually helped pass this bill all during this process. I want to thank Lynne Weil, my communications director, and Eleanor Bastian, my legislative director. I want to thank Rachel Stauffer, my former health policy director who started this, and Matt Inzeo, who is Lynne's predecessor. From the Upton staff, I want to thank Gary Andres, Joan Hillebrand, Paul Edattel, John Stone, Carly McWilliams, Adrianna Simonelli, and J.P. Paluskiewicz. All of you guys have worked together as a team with my team. I want to thank Kristen O'Neill from Mr. Green's staff. I don't think I thanked Mr. Green. I want to thank Mr. Green, who has done such an extraordinary job and who has really been my wingman. I want to thank Wendell Primus, who is Leader Pelosi's senior adviser; and Charlene MacDonald, who is Mr. Hoyer's adviser. Finally, I want to thank the entire Pallone team, who has worked as our committee staff tirelessly: Jeff Carroll, Tiffany, Kim, Arielle, Waverly, and Megan. They have been fabulous. We haven't always agreed on everything, but in the end we have all worked together. It really is a great team. I hope we can use this in the next Congress to get to even greater heights. I urge the House to pass this bill on a strong bipartisan basis, and I urge the other body to take it up.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate World Diabetes Day and to urge the passage of the National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act (H.R. 1192), which would authorize a committee of experts to improve care for people with diabetes and associated conditions. I'd like to thank the original co-sponsors of the bill, Mr. Olson and Mr. Loebsack, as well as Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, for all your hard work in making sure this important legislation gets the attention it deserves. World Diabetes Day helps raise awareness of the scope of this disease. In that spirit, I'd like to note for all our colleagues that the human and economic impact of diabetes in the United States is mammoth. More than 29 million people in the United States from all walks of life have diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control estimates as many as 86 million Americans have pre-diabetes. This disease is a life-long reality that patients and their families must grapple with every day. As the mother of a child with type 1 diabetes, I know the toll it can take. But I'm also in awe of the bravery and strength exhibited by people who live with diabetes. For them, we must continue to support innovative and thoughtful solutions that address awareness, prevention and cures. For health care problems of this magnitude, coordination is essential. Increased communication and planning between the many different federal agencies working to prevent and treat diabetes will make a difference for patients and help us spend taxpayer dollars in a more cost-effective way. The National Clinical Care Commission Act would help jump-start these efforts by facilitating dialogue and coordination between leaders in the federal government and experts from the field. The Commission would be tasked with reviewing the many different ways the government currently spends money on diabetes and coming up with a strategic plan on how to move forward effectively and efficiently. I have no doubt that the House will pass H.R. 1192 today. I encourage the Senate to vote on this commonsense bill as soon as possible. Thank you.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, a recent poll showed that Congress has an approval rating of 12 percent. Nobody in their right mind would ever think that is a good rating. It is no wonder that our poll ratings are so low. We have left now for 7 weeks--52 days, as you have heard--without funding Zika, despite the fact that it is spreading throughout the Southwest United States and the territories. We have left now for 52 days--7 weeks--without passing commonsense gun safety legislation, despite the terrible tragedies we are seeing in all of our communities every day. We have left town without addressing the opioid epidemic in any meaningful way through funding. Now, listen. Our constituents didn't send us here to go on vacation. They have sent us here to do the work of the people. And anybody who thinks that the people--our constituents--are not going to notice that we are not here doing this work for 7 weeks doesn't understand what the House Democratic Caucus intends to do for the next 2 months, because we intend to remind our constituents every single day of the job that we were elected to do.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this bill, which is really nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is being touted as just simply a conscience clause, but, in fact, it strips away patient protections; it gives employers and healthcare companies the right to override a woman's reproductive healthcare decision; it vastly expands already damaging existing laws that restrict women's abilities to get full insurance coverage; and, just to add, it would clog the courts because it would create private rights of action for healthcare entities to enforce the law. Now, existing so-called conscience provisions are bad enough, but what they apply to is existing healthcare entities. What this bill would do is something that has never been done before. It would allow employers and others to exercise this right; it would require OCR and DOJ to investigate claims of discrimination; and it would expand the definition of healthcare entities. All of this would just simply interfere with a woman's ability to get accurate information about treatment options and could lead to her being deprived of timely emergency care. There is already plenty of evidence that current conscience provisions jeopardize women's health and safety. They create confusion about whether healthcare providers are required to offer critical care in emergency situations. I have heard some heart-wrenching stories about what happened to the women. Let me just tell you one of them. Tamesha Means of Muskegon, Michigan, was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke. The nearest hospital, Mercy Health Partners, didn't pursue the normal course of treatment, inducing labor for a pregnancy that wasn't viable, in order to avoid risky complications. Instead, what they did is they gave her painkillers and they sent her home. Over the next 2 days, Tamesha returned to the hospital twice, bleeding and in severe pain, running a high fever, only to get more or less the same response. They were completing the papers to send her home a third time--a third time--when she started to deliver a very premature infant, dead within hours. Madam Speaker, we would likely see much more needless suffering and endangerment if the bill before us were to pass. It would let employers who sponsor health plans deny their female employees access to medical services to which the employer objects. It would reinforce existing provisions that let health providers opt out of providing such services or even informing people about them. With all of this in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bad legislation. Every patient should be able to make meaningful, informed decisions about their health care. Congress needs to stop interfering in women's health decisions once and for all. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides.