Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act. Frankly, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were so firm in their commitment to protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, they would support this bill, because all it says is that section 1332 will not stop the protections that we have under current law. The Trump administration guidance that allows States to undermine the preexisting condition provisions of the ACA is, frankly, in clear violation of congressional intent. Let's be clear about something. When we say we are going to protect people with preexisting conditions, we actually mean it. That is exactly what this legislation does. I would welcome support from my friends on the other side of the aisle. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, over 750,000 people just in my little State of Colorado would be at risk of losing their healthcare coverage if it wasn't for the protections of the ACA. The administration's repeated attempts to take these protections away from people and deny them their right to obtain healthcare coverage is the difference for many of them between life and death. We are not going to let this happen. This Congress is going to make sure that the goals of the ACA to give full healthcare coverage to every American, including people with preexisting conditions, is going to be preserved. We have come too far to turn back the clock now. Mr. Chair, I am glad that we have this bill on the floor now. I thank my colleague, Ms. Kuster, for sponsoring it, and I urge every Member of this body to support it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Another week, another school shooting, this time right outside my district at the STEM Highlands Ranch School. My heart aches for everybody there, but you know something? That is so far from enough. People say it is too soon, we can't talk about gun safety, but you know what? Tell that to the survivors of Columbine, only 7 miles away from STEM Highlands, who have been waiting for 20 years for it to be time. Tell that to the Sandy Hook parents. Tell that to the thousands of parents around this country who have lost their children in school shootings and just simply shootings on street corners. The time has come. We need commonsense gun safety legislation, and we need it now. Until then, the blood of these children and all of the other children are on all of our hands.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of her 90th birthday, to recognize Susanne Kirtland Dietrich, one of the great women business leaders of her time and a true icon in the fields of fashion, advertising and cosmetics. Susanne was born on April 26, 1929 in Norfolk, Virginia. After having worked in a variety of retail and fashion positions in New York and Philadelphia, in 1955, Susanne was named a fashion editor at Look Magazine, where she worked with some of the era's top photographers, including Milton Greene, Tony Vaccaro, and Lillian Bassman; and covered some of the most ground-breaking fashion trends of post-war America. During this time, Susanne covered some of the era's top international icons, including Richard Burton, Marilyn Monroe, and Sophia Lauren; and worked closely with some of America's leading designers, such as Geoffrey Bean and Norman Norrell. Despite her many successes, some would still argue that one of the things Susanne is best known for is having challenged designer Rudi Gurnreich to design the first topless bathing suit for women, which he did--and eventually released in 1964. One day, while at a photo shoot in Milton Greene's studio on the East Side of Manhattan, Susanne met a Danish immigrant and commercial artist by the name of Kurt Dietrich, whom she would later marry. Susanne and Kurt would go on to have three children--two boys, Gregg and Mark, and a daughter, Allison. In those days, there was no such thing as paid maternity leave--or any maternity leave at all for that matter. A woman would have to save up and use vacation time to give birth to a child. And when they did return to work, these new mothers were often treated as if nothing had ever happened. Susanne's experience was no different, but it was how well she was able to manage both the constant demands of motherhood, while continuing to pursue her highly-successful career, that made her unique. After the birth of her third child, Susanne decided to shake things up. She left the publishing business entirely to pursue a new career in advertising as a copywriter at AC&R. While there, Susanne worked on multiple memorable advertising campaigns, from Greek Tourism to the Wool Bureau, before eventually helping to launch Estee Lauder's newest product line, Clinique. During this time, Susanne, a working mother with three young children, suddenly found herself as one of the trend-setting jet setters of the post-war era. She spent years traveling the globe, frequently visiting far-flung locales, such as London, Greece and the Caribbean--again, all while raising her three kids. Eventually, Susanne's success with Clinique led to a role at Revlon where she worked closely with the company's founder, Charles Revson, and its president, Paul Woolard, to develop some of the most memorable fragrances and advertisements of the day, including ``Charlie!'' and ``Jontue.'' Not only were these campaigns a success, they empowered women--especially young working women--to throw out the old rules and embrace their womanhood in a new era. Susanne's success at Revlon eventually caught the eye of Leonard Lauder, who approached her one day and asked her to come work for him in-house at Estee Lauder. She spent the next 24 years working on products and campaigns for Clinique, Prescriptives and Estee Lauder International, before retiring in 2003 at the age of 74. Susanne's impressive record of achievement is one that any of us would be proud of, but what makes it extra special is how she was able to do it all while raising a family. Susanne has never considered herself a pioneer of anything, but she was--and she continues to serve as a role model for women around the world who, like her, seek to live their lives to the fullest while successfully balancing the demands of career, family and travel. Despite her hectic schedule and the constant demands on her time, Susanne and her husband, Kurt, made it all work. They remained married for more than forty years, until Kurt's death in 1999, and together they created a beautiful home for their family in New York. Susanne, now a grandmother to five beautiful grandchildren, always said the key to her success was never taking life too seriously. In fact, to fully understand the way Susanne embraces life, just look at the lyrics of the original 1973 jingle created for her Charlie campaign: ``kinda young, kinda free, and kinda wow!'' That's Susanne. Today, at the age of 90, Susanne continues to take that advice to heart, whether she's whipping through the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle, enjoying her occasional martini, or sharing some laughs with the ones she loves the most. I am honored to pay tribute to Susanne, who continues to inspire us all. And I wish her a very happy 90th birthday.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims of the tragic shooting that took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado on April 20, 1999. Saturday marks 20 years since that horrific April day when two armed students walked on to campus and opened fire, killing 12 of their fellow classmates and one teacher, and wounding another 20 more. The images we saw that day will live with us forever. And for those who were at the school that day when these horrific events unfolded, or who lost loved ones as a result, the pain and sadness they feel today is just as real as it was 20 years ago. As time goes on, the memories of those we lost that day will never be forgotten. They were sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, friends and loved ones. Each with their own story to tell. Each with their own goals and ambitions. And each with their own group of loved ones who still miss them terribly. Cassie Bernall, who was 17 years old, was a dedicated member of her church youth group and wanted to eventually be a doctor. Steven Curnow, at age 14, was a talented soccer player and avid Star Wars fan who had hoped to one day pilot an F-16 fighter jet. Corey DePooter, age 17, loved fishing, and was working at a local golf course to earn enough money to one day buy his own boat. Kelly Fleming, age 16, was a skilled writer who loved to read and dreamed of one day recording her own stories for others to read. Matthew Kechter, age 16, was a straight-A student, who was on his way to becoming a starting linemen on the school's football team. Daniel Mauser, age 15, was also a straight-A student and a valued member of the school's cross-country and debate teams. Danny Rohrbough, age 15, would save all the money he earned working at his family's business to buy Christmas presents for his loved ones at the end of the year. William ``Dave'' Sanders, age 47, was a beloved teacher and coach, who sacrificed his own safety that day to help more than 100 students flee to safety. Rachel Scott, age 17, was an inspiring writer and actress who had written her diary before the attack about the importance of reaching out to those who are being picked on by others. Isaiah Shoels, age 18, was a budding keyboardist who had dreamed of following in his father's footsteps by becoming a record producer. John Tomlin, age 16, loved spending time with his church youth group, and planned on serving in our nation's armed forces after graduation. Lauren Townsend, age 18, loved animals, and when she wasn't leading the girls varsity volleyball team, you could find her working after school at the local animal shelter. Kyle Velasquez, age 16, loved ice cream and always wore a big smile. He, too, had hoped to enlist in the military one day, just like his father. The shooting that took place at Columbine 20 years ago this weekend was, at the time, the deadliest high-school mass shooting in our nation's history; and it would likely have been much worse had it not been for the bravery shown by all those who responded to the scene that day. The selflessness and courage many of our first responders exhibited that day, in the face of such grave danger, saved countless lives. And, while it may have been 20 years ago, we are still extremely grateful for their efforts. We're also thankful for all those who helped our community come together in the wake of a tragedy. People like Columbine's principal, Frank DeAngelis, whose outstanding leadership helped students, teachers and parents, alike, overcome a tragedy. I'll never forget watching Frank lead hundreds of students back to campus for the first time, just four months after the shooting. They were all wearing t-shirts with the words ``We are Columbine'' written across the front. We. Are. Columbine. It was just three little words--but the message it sent was as powerful as any I've ever seen. Sadly, in the 20 years since the tragic events that unfolded at Columbine that day, we have seen similar tragedies play out again and again across this country. We can and must do more to protect our communities from the threat of gun violence. As hundreds of friends and neighbors come together in Columbine on Saturday to honor those who were lost as a result of this tragedy, I hope we, as a nation, can also come together and recommit ourselves to enacting the commonsense solutions that we all know are needed to better protect the ones we love. Because, as those students said 20 years ago: We are Columbine. We are all Columbine. And we all have a responsibility to act to ensure that another tragic shooting--such as the one we saw at Columbine--never happens again.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. DeSaulnier for yielding to me. I also want to thank him and my colleague, Mr. Cicilline, for sponsoring this important piece of legislation. This really is a very concerning trend that is taking place in our society as more and more local news organizations in our communities are shutting down or becoming nonexistent. Maintaining a truly free and independent press is vital to our democracy. I guess he is our favorite Founder tonight, Thomas Jefferson, also said: ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' We, as a society, rely on members of the press to be our watchdogs, to sound the alarms and hold our government leaders accountable when necessary. According to a study from the University of North Carolina, over the last 15 years, the newspaper industry has seen over 1,800 mergers or closures of print newspapers. That is a staggering 20 percent of all newspapers in the country that have now closed since 2004. In my home State of Colorado, we have three counties--Costilla, Baca, and Cheyenne--that have no daily or weekly papers at all. And, in my hometown of Denver, where we have seen explosive population growth, we now only have one daily newspaper, The Denver Post. Our other newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, published its last issue in 2009, 2 months shy of what would have been its 150th anniversary. While it may have outlived the competition and it now serves as our city's only remaining daily paper, The Denver Post, too, has faced its share of hardships in recent years. In 2013, The Post had over 250 employees, but today the number is less than 100. On April 8, 2018, in response to another round of devastating layoffs at the paper, The Denver Post's own editorial board published an op-ed entitled ``As Vultures Circle, The Denver Post Must Be Saved.'' In that op-ed, the editorial board wrote: ``The smart money is that in a few years The Denver Post will be rotting bones. And a major city in an important political region will find itself without a newspaper.'' These are not my words. These are The Denver Post's own employee's words. The massive decline in the number of reporters covering our local communities is not happening just in Denver. It is happening all over the country, and it is threatening to have real, tangible impacts on our communities. Now, we heard Congresswoman Lofgren question how we are going to get coverage of local government in our newspapers. At The Denver Post, one of the layoffs they had was their one employee who covered Congress. So we are not only now not having coverage on local governments, but also of the U.S. House of Representatives. Nationwide, the number of full-time reporters covering our State legislatures is down 35 percent from 2003. And, while the reporters who remain continue as an invaluable service to our communities, frankly, they can't do it all, and, as a result, certain stories absolutely go unreported. A joint study by the University of Notre Dame and the University of Illinois at Chicago found a connection between local newspaper closures and increased interest rates on local bonds. In fact, the study found that the closure of a local newspaper results in local taxpayers paying an extra $650,000 in interest per loan. That is $650,000 in local taxpayer dollars that could otherwise go to schools, police, firefighters, potholes, or any other of a host of local needs, all lost simply because they didn't have local newspapers watching out on local government. We often talk in Congress about the fox guarding the henhouse, but in too many small and rural communities there is no one guarding at all. At the end of the day, for the sake of our democracy, we need local newspapers. We need local reporters. We need our watchdogs doing what they do best. We need to find ways to protect local news outlets and help them thrive. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier for highlighting this pressing issue affecting our communities and for having us here to discuss this tonight.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, this week the House is considering H.R. 1, the For the People Act. This bill takes on one of the biggest issues facing our democracy: campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court's decision, in Citizens United, was one of the most disastrous decisions of our time. It opened the floodgates to the unlimited amount of unregulated dark money that is now corrupting our democracy. And Congress not only has the authority to regulate the way our political campaigns are financed, but, I believe, we have the moral responsibility to step up. This bill would shed light on the billionaires and special interest groups who are really behind some of the candidates running for office, and it would level the playing field by giving the power back to the traditional grass roots donors. This, without a doubt, is one of the most important issues that we as a Congress will take on this year, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues to get in this fight to get unlimited dark money out of the political system once and for all.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity, as well as the wonderful items in this bil that Mrs. Dingell talked about, to make long overdue reforms to the way that the Food and Drug Administration reviews over-the-counter medicines. Nearly 7 in 10 parents report giving their children an OTC medicine to help treat a sudden medical symptom. Similarly, 81 percent of adults use OTC drugs as a first response to a minor ailment. Despite the widespread use of these medicines, though, the FDA is forced to use a cumbersome and archaic monograph pathway for review and approval. This antiquated, 40-year review system does not keep pace with recent medical advances and the burgeoning of the OTC market, which now has over 300,000 drugs. As a result, the current monograph fails to respond to OTC safety issues in a timely and effective manner. During the 2 years between 2004 and 2005, the CDC reported 1,500 cases of children under the age of 2 visiting emergency rooms due to serious side effects of over-the-counter drugs of cough and cold products. Since this finding, the FDA has been trying to revise the cough and cold monograph to warn parents about the risks that these common drugs can cause. But the FDA can't do that because they are hamstrung due to the burdensome process it has to undergo to revise these monographs. This bill, H.R. 7328, which I worked on with my colleagues, Mr. Latta, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Green, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. Guthrie, is a rare triple win because it helps regulators, consumers, and industry: It modernizes an outdated FDA process; It ensures consumers get access to safe and effective over-the- counter drugs; It provides industry with the certainty to innovate and develop cutting-edge OTC products; and It gives the FDA the tools and resources to remove dangerous and ineffective products from the market. Let's pass this bill right now, and let's urge the Senate to get something done and pass this before the Congress ends.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I know that the ranking member already yielded back, so I thank Mr. Burgess for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to hurry down here to speak in favor of this bill because I have been working on it for many years with my colleague and friend, Jaime Herrera Beutler. According to the CDC, maternal mortality rates rose by 26 percent in the U.S. between 2000 and 2014. These deaths are preventable, and they should not be happening in 2018. So to combat this alarming trend, 33 States have established maternal mortality review committees made up of healthcare professionals who review individual maternal deaths and then recommend policy decisions. Our bill provides Federal support for these committees and supports efforts to standardize them. It has 190 cosponsors. It has received support from 90 national public health organizations. It is really a great example of how the Energy and Commerce Committee works in a bipartisan way. So I thank everybody for being here and thank the chairman for his comity.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of a remarkable Coloradan, Frederick Grover, M.D., who on September 20th will retire after nearly 50 years of exemplary professional, military and community service. Dr. Grover has been a powerful force in our community; he has had an extraordinary career as a cardiothoracic surgeon at our preeminent medical institutions and is a recognized national leader in his field. Dr. Grover is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine. He completed his residency training at Duke and the University of Colorado. After two years of service in the U.S. Navy in San Diego, he spent 19 years at University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center in the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery. He then became the head of the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and Chief of Surgical Services at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver. His impact will be felt for decades through his active participation in the training and mentoring of more than 50 thoracic surgery residents, his clinical work in the areas of acquired adult cardiac surgery and lung and heart transplantation and his dedication to international medical missions. Dr. Grover's legacy includes a new chair, with its first appointee serving this year, at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine: The Fred and Carol Grover Endowed Chair in Surgery. Dr. Grover served as President of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SOTS) from 2006 to 2007 and has worked closely with my office and the entire Colorado congressional delegation over many years to impact federal health care legislation. As a fellow congregant at Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church, I have seen Dr. Grover's commitment to his community and to improving people's health on a global scale. He has been on Montview's Global Mission Committee since 2003 and has led numerous medical missions to Nepal, improving health care facilities and performing life-saving surgeries. He is also very much a family man, devoted to especially to his grandchildren--who range in age from grade school to college. He has made a point of bringing each of them, when very young, to Washington DC so they could experience our nation's capital. I have been proud to host them in Congress, even on the House floor itself. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor my friend Fred Grover for his dedication to patients, his compassion and his significant participation in the civic life of Colorado. It is an honor to celebrate his service.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, is far from perfect, as several of our colleagues have noted. The amendment I am offering today would reverse most of the bill's most egregious shortcomings and help ensure that liquefied natural gas exports benefiting from expedited approval truly are in the public interest, as the original bill purports to do. This amendment would help keep methane waste to a minimum for the LNG exports permitted by the bill. It requires export applications to show that the natural gas was produced using available techniques and technologies to minimize methane emissions from leaks or venting. In other words, this amendment would require companies developing liquefied natural gas for export to actually develop and export the natural gas rather than venting vast quantities into the atmosphere or lighting it on fire. This requirement is easy to implement with readily available technologies. Many companies are already working to reduce their methane emissions. Sara Ortwein, president of XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, just this week stated her company's continued support for Federal methane regulations, and she is far from alone. In Colorado, we have had strong methane rules in place since 2014, and our oil and gas industry has continued to thrive, even as it is required to find and stop the leaks. Stopping these leaks has real benefits. There is widespread scientific consensus that methane leaks into the atmosphere significantly contribute to climate change. The volatile organic compounds released with the methane increase ground-level pollution and harm public health. When natural gas is produced on public land, it leaks rob taxpayers of royalties on the wasted gas. So we can and we must prevent such needless harmful emissions wherever possible, and this measure is one way to do it. It would increase the royalties collected for taxpayers; it would reduce climate-changing emissions; and it would protect public health. Vote for it and you will vote for a better future for our constituents, for our children, and for generations to come. Now, colleagues who are considering whether to support this amendment may be interested to learn that natural and regional polling consistently show strong bipartisan support for methane rules. Sixty to 80 percent or more of those polled expressed their approval. Now, there may be many reasons for which some people will oppose this amendment, but I can't think of any that would stand up to scrutiny. I would look forward to discussing those reasons here. And if you oppose this amendment, let's talk about it. Otherwise, we can reduce these emissions; we can pass this bill; and it would go a long way toward cleaning up our environment and saving money. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, just quickly, these rules that the gentleman referred to, alleging that they solve the problem, I would just say the BLM Methane and Waste Prevention rule was eliminated by the Trump EPA under Scott Pruitt, and so that is not controlling the public lands emissions right now, which is what this amendment would do. And the EPA rule under the Clean Air Act is also under attack. Really, if it is current law, why not just support it? Why not say, if we are going to be developing this LNG, let's stop these leaks? Because it helps our environment, it helps with our air and our climate change, and it also helps with profits. And, frankly, for the BLM lands and the other Federal lands, it will help the taxpayers recover money. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition of this amendment, which would block funding for the enforcement of the EPA methane rule. This rule will combat climate change, protect public health, and capture a resource that would otherwise go to waste. The EPA Methane rule will curb methane emissions by estimated 510,000 short tons per year by 2025. This will represent a savings of $100 million in natural gas that would otherwise leak into the atmosphere. It is important to remember that it is not only methane leaking out of oil and gas facilities. This rule would prevent the release of 210,000 short tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are a threat to public health. When released, these compounds form ozone, which the EPA has linked to asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and numerous other health conditions. Ozone is particularly harmful to vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with preexisting conditions. My own district is part of a Clean Air Act non-attainment area where elevated ozone is a perennial hazard. The health benefits of limiting methane and VOC leaks led Colorado to institute its own regulations for containing leaks and preventing the release of these compounds in 2014. Those rules, which served as the template for EPA's rule, balanced the need for responsible energy development with the need to protect public health and even had support from companies in the oil and gas industry. Colorado's oil and gas industry has continued to thrive even as they are required to find and stop leaks. Clearly a rule requiring companies find and fix leaks is a win-win, allowing for responsible energy development and protecting public health at the same time. Furthermore, accidental methane release exacerbates climate change as methane is several times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Enforcing this rule would provide a climate change benefit equal to taking 8.5 million cars off the road. The need to combat climate change is only going to grow more pressing as the world faces increased harm from droughts, fires, and extreme weather. Colorado is already regularly facing low snowpack and devastating fire seasons. Colorado's experience demonstrates both the need and the benefits of rules curbing methane leaks. Blocking enforcement of this rule will lead to wasted natural gas, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and worse public health. That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and allow EPA to enforce the methane rule.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to make long- overdue reforms to the way that the FDA reviews over-the-counter medicines. These medicines play a critical role in treating Americans' ailments and in helping us stay healthy. In fact, almost 7 in 10 parents report giving their kids OTC medicine to help treat sudden medical symptoms. Similarly, 81 percent of adults use these drugs as a first response to treat a minor ailment. Think about it. Despite the widespread use of over-the-counter medicines, the FDA is currently forced to use a cumbersome and laborious monograph pathway to approve them. This antiquated, 40-year- old OTC review system has not kept pace with new medical advances and the rapid expansion of this market, which now comprises over 300,000 drugs. As a result, the current monograph review system fails to respond to the OTC safety issues in a timely and effective way, which can pose serious healthcare risks for children and families. Between 2004 and 2005, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 1,500 cases of children under the age of 2 visiting emergency rooms due to serious side effects or overdoses associated with over-the-counter cough and cold products. Since the CDC made this startling finding, the FDA has been trying to revise the cough and cold monograph system to warn parents about the risks that these common drugs can pose to children, but the FDA can't do it because they have been hamstrung due to the burdensome process it must undergo to revise these monographs. The Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act would streamline the FDA's review of over-the-counter drugs and provide it with new tools to protect children and warn parents about potentially dangerous OTC drugs. I want to add my thanks to the bipartisan team that passed this bill, Representatives Latta, Burgess, Green, Guthrie, and Dingell for all working together with me on this important legislation, and, in addition, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Walden, the FDA, and the many stakeholders that have worked closely with us throughout the process. Mr. Speaker, the bill is a rare triple win for regulators, consumers, and industry. I urge my colleagues' support.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Guthrie and Langevin for working with me on this very important bill, which addresses a national health care issue involving safety, efficiency and privacy affecting many of our constituents. As most people who have been engaged in this matter know, the mental health portion of the 21st Century Cures Act--the overwhelmingly bipartisan biomedical reform bill that was signed into law in December 2016--included what is called electronic visit verification (EVV) provisions. These provisions require states to verify the provider, date, time and site of personal care and home health services. They were meant to give patients the power to hold their providers accountable for delivering services when and where they are supposed to do so. But given the delay by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in getting guidance for implementation of the provisions to the states, and the way the agency ignored Congressional intent to involve stakeholders in the regulatory process, House members had to step in to try and right what the Executive Branch has done poorly in the past year and a half. The bill before you today grants a one-year delay in implementation of the EVV requirements. It also requires CMS to involve stakeholders both in the planning and throughout the implementation of the EVV requirements to ensure that the privacy and civil rights of consumers are protected. This bill ensures that administrative and financial burdens on service providers are neither onerous nor duplicative and that states are able to design and implement their EVV programs in a thoughtful, deliberative manner. It also affords CMS the opportunity to hear from beneficiaries enrolled in self-directed plans about the challenges EVV could present for them. This legislation will also help foster a comprehensive and transparent process that carefully balances the serious privacy concerns of consumers and caregivers, the administrative and financial concerns of providers and states, and EVV's goals of patient control and fraud prevention. Mr. Speaker, if properly implemented EVV has potential to ensure that high-quality services are delivered when and where needed, while also reducing the potential for waste and fraud. This legislation will require CMS to follow a proper stakeholder engagement process, in order to ensure that the policy is implemented correctly. It will also allow each state greater opportunity to ensure that its EVV programs are best suited to individuals' specific needs. I strongly urge all members to support this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 220 on the Gabbard of Hawaii Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5515, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted ``nay.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Aguilar

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act. While I support several provisions in the legislation, including prohibiting shackling of pregnant inmates, requiring that individuals be incarcerated closer to their families, and clarifying good time calculations, I cannot support other provisions of the legislation. I strongly believe the House should be working to ensure that once convicted individuals have paid their debt to society they have the skills and support to reintegrate into society, but this bill puts in place too many barriers to that goal. The bill excludes undocumented individuals, including those who remained in the United States longer than authorized from the recidivism reduction programming. Worse, the bill also excludes some lawful permanent residents from the program and could trigger their removal. The bill also excludes those who have been convicted of drug crimes, including marijuana related convictions. Given that immigrant and minority communities make up a disproportionate share of immigration and drug related offenders in the criminal justice system, these exclusions will by their very nature exclude those who most need the benefits of the bill. Finally, any conversation about reducing recidivism must include sentencing reform that would keep low risk nonviolent offenders out of prison in the first place and address our draconian federal mandatory minimum laws. Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we must do better if we are to address this issue.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes dangerous new standards of care on doctors under threat of criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in jail. It is just another attempt by the majority to interfere with the medical judgment of doctors and other trained healthcare professionals, and it is, frankly, another example of why it is such a very, very bad idea for Congress to be legislating medical standards. H.R. 4712 is also a solution in search of a problem. There is simply no evidence that current law is insufficient to protect infants. It should go without saying that it has always been illegal to kill newborns. It is a complete distortion of the truth to say anything otherwise. In 2002, as my colleagues have said, Congress reaffirmed that infants are entitled to appropriate medical care under a law that passed on a bipartisan basis. I voted for it. That law left medical judgment where it should be: in the hands of doctors, instead of politicians. Today, the only example that we have heard from the other side of a horror that they are talking about was Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and it was a horror. And guess what? He was prosecuted under current law. And guess what? He is spending the rest of his life in prison, which is where he should be. Sadly, the true intent of this bill is to intimidate and shame doctors out of providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare to patients. The extreme and vague requirements of this bill, coupled with its stiff criminal and civil penalties, are only meant to have a chilling effect on providers, which will reduce access to safe and legal abortion. Do you know what? I have been saying this every time we have one of these bills on the floor--the bills that are solutions in search of problems. Here is what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If they truly want to reduce abortion in this country, work with us on providing family planning and long-acting birth control to everybody. Abortion is at the lowest rate in history in this country, and the reason is because States, like my State of Colorado, are providing birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We can do this on a bipartisan basis, but, instead, my colleagues choose not to, and I think that is a shame for every single woman and family in this country.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of an extraordinary Denverite, Charles Burrell, who on November 28th was inducted into the Colorado Music Hall of Fame. I've known Charlie my whole life. His distinguished career included playing in the Al Rose Trio founded by my uncle, Al Rose, together with Lee Arrelano. It was the first racially integrated jazz group in Colorado, and in the 1950s and '60s, they played at some of Denver's best-known destinations for music. When my uncle died unexpectedly at a relatively early age, Charlie volunteered to be my ``honorary uncle,'' a role he has embraced. Born in Toledo, Ohio, in 1920 and raised in Detroit, Charles Burrell studied music at Cass-Technical High School, then one of the most prestigious music schools in the nation. Although a dedicated student of classical music, Charlie and his friends embraced jazz and practiced it whenever possible. At seventeen, he was even asked to join the Lionel Hampton Big Band, affording him the opportunity to travel the country with some of the jazz greats of the time. Charlie attended the New England Conservatory of Music and then joined the Navy, where he was selected to join the first-ever all-Black Navy band, which was used in recruiting to help encourage African- American enlistment. After an honorable discharge, he attended Wayne State University with an eye toward teaching music in the public schools, and eventually made his way to Denver to do just that in 1949. A chance meeting with John VanBuskirk, the lead bass player with the Denver Symphony Orchestra, led to an audition, and Charlie became the first person of color in the nation to be hired by a major orchestra. Charlie is equally comfortable in an orchestra or a jazz band. He was known to finish a performance at the DSO and then wrap up his evening playing jazz at the Rossonian Hotel in the Five Points neighborhood. In 1959, Charlie became the first person of color to join the San Francisco Symphony, fulfilling a childhood dream. He played under conductor Pierre Monteux until 1965. Always a generous man, Charlie has been an inspiration and mentor to many, including his niece, the two-time Grammy award-winning vocalist Dianne Reeves, and his cousin the renowned pianist George Duke. At ninety-seven, Charlie has proved that age is just a number, frequently playing live bass on KUVO, Denver's preeminent jazz station. Charles Burrell has been called the Jackie Robinson of classical music for his ability, class, and poise, helping forge change in American institutions that weren't always inclined to widen their circles. It is my honor today to add to the accolades of this accomplished trailblazer.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as one of the authors of the original bill 20 years ago, I rise to express deep disappointment that the House has not been able to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the extension of CHIP. The September 30 deadline has long passed, and now 9 million children and families are waiting anxiously for us to figure this out. My home State of Colorado is likely to run out of CHIP funding in January, with termination notices going out to worried families in the next few weeks. Yet here we are with a partisan bill that asks us to pay for low- income children's insurance on the backs of seniors and the most vulnerable. The bill also cuts the Affordable Care Act, which could result in 668,000 people enrolled in ACA plans losing their health insurance. Nobody should have to lose coverage in order for others to keep it. This is a false choice, and it is out of step with what the American people have been calling on us to do. Only the 115th Congress could find a way to make the CHIP bill partisan. Irrespective of what happens today in this vote, I urge my colleagues to get together across the aisle, across the Capitol, find a way to reauthorize this important bill in a way that doesn't cut benefits for other people. Let's truly give kids these benefits that they need, and let's move on with our business.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and also Ms. Jayapal for allowing me to speak today. Madam Speaker, I rise for my former district director Chris and his wife, Bridget. This is their story. Bridget was pregnant with their very much-wanted second child. After the 20th week, they were stunned to learn that the brain stem of the fetus was not attached, and if the baby even survived, then the newborn would likely die within hours. Doctors told the family, if they wanted more children, it would be a good idea to end the pregnancy. After consulting with their minister, they decided to do so. The happy ending is that a year or so later another child was born, and she is happy and healthy today. As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I know that difficult circumstances always surround these highly personal decisions, and I don't think that the U.S. Congress is the body that should impose its opinion. Just imagine the horrible choices families would have to make if H.R. 36 became law. Ninety-nine percent of abortions are conducted before the 20-week mark. Virtually all the rest are just like this situation. Madam Speaker, I urge the body to reject this bill and to move on to important issues that are facing this country.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I associate myself with his remarks about everything we need to do by the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of this week; in particular, reauthorization of CHIP that has helped so many millions of kids get health insurance and get the care that they need. I rise today, though, to talk about the MIECHV bill, which is up today, and to express my deep disappointment that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away from yet another opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis. We could extend this program on a bipartisan basis just the way we started it. It is really a success story. The evidence-based models are proven to deliver results for kids and families in every single State. Investments in MIECHV are investments in the success of America's children and their futures. Peer-reviewed evidence proves that MIECHV leads to improvements in health outcomes for mothers and babies, school achievement, parenting practices, and overall early childhood development. On top of all that, MIECHV is a great return on investment for Federal dollars. For example, for every Federal dollar in the Nurse- Family Partnership, we get $5.70 in return. Sadly, this bill that the House is considering today would set MIECHV back. The partisan proposal would make it more difficult for MIECHV models in all of our States to continue their success stories. Under current law, MIECHV only has enough funding to reach 6 percent of eligible families. But instead of working together to help the program reach more children, this bill curtails the reach. It cuts the funding and, as my ranking member said, it imposes a harmful State- matching requirement that could force some of these home health visit programs to shut down altogether. It is really a shame that when you are talking about healthy starts for kids, we can't work together on both sides of the aisle. I would hope we would defeat this legislation and come back and do what we have done before on this program, work together to have a robust piece of legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama talks about the First Amendment rights of employers, but, clearly, this statute by the D.C. Government complies with all of the constitutional rights. What I am concerned about here is discrimination against employees for making their own reproductive health decisions. Apparently, that doesn't matter to the people on the other side of the aisle: the right of people to take birth control, to have in vitro fertilization, or even to have an abortion. The D.C. Council decided that was an important right, and that is why they passed this legislation. This is why we should preserve it today. There is absolutely no reason why we should take the rights of self- governance away from D.C., and there is absolutely no reason why we should take the rights of women and families to exercise their legal, constitutional healthcare decisions. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I missed rollcall vote No. 480 due to family commitments. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against: