Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today, Colorado blazed a trail for the rights of women and girls when it became the first state to loosen restrictions on legal abortions. Until then, the procedure was available only if the woman's life was at stake. The new law allowed an abortion if the woman's physical or mental health was threatened, if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or if the child might have serious birth defects. Mr. Speaker, this was seven years before the U.S. Supreme Court would affirm a woman's constitutional right to choose in Roe v. Wade. Today, polling consistently shows that seven in 10 Americans do not believe that Roe should be overturned. But back in 1967, allowing any loosening of the near-absolute ban on abortion was a risky move from a political point of view. A freshman Colorado state lawmaker, Richard Lamm, decided the risk was worth it, even if it meant the end of his career. After introducing the bill, he worked State Senator John Bermingham and many others to persuade the overwhelmingly male and Republican-dominated legislature to pass it. Within weeks, Republican Governor John Love signed it into law. The year before, only 10 abortions had been reported to Colorado's health department. During the eight months remaining in 1967 after the bill was signed, 120 abortions were reported--including for a 12-year- old girl who had been raped. Without that law, her only recourse would have been either a back-alley procedure or carrying the pregnancy to term. Within the next three years, 11 other states emulated Colorado, while four others loosened restrictions on legal abortions even more. Rather than see his career come to an end, Richard Lamm went on to serve three terms as Colorado's governor. Now age 81, he's the co- director of the University of Denver's Institute of Public Policy Studies. Mr. Speaker, as a leader in women's reproductive rights, I am proud to hail from the state that, half a century ago, led the way in giving women and girls more control over their own bodies. It's thanks to enlightened people with courage and conviction like Richard Lamm that such progress can be made.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution because it would remove consumers' right to control their online privacy and put it in the hands of corporations. Every time people go online, they create trails of data that have tremendous commercial value. This creates incentive for the ISPs to sell web history to a third party, be it an advocacy group, a for- profit company, or even a foreign government. Late last year, the FCC put Americans in charge of how ISPs use and share their consumer data. The FCC's rule also required that the ISPs engage in reasonable data security practices. Even if people believe that the FCC's rule went too far and should be modified, it is unclear how the FCC could move forward with such a plan given the constraints of the Congressional Review Act. Furthermore, as several people have mentioned, the FCC, which is charged with protecting consumers' privacy, does not even have the authority to oversee ISP practices. Given the number of data breaches in recent years at companies such as Yahoo, we should, frankly, be strengthening data retention requirements, not weakening them. At its core, S.J. Res. 34 weakens consumer protections today and makes them harder to implement in the future, which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, President Trump promised his healthcare plan would be ``much better health care at a much lower cost.'' Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price even promised ``nobody will be worse off financially.'' In reality, of course, the TrumpCare bill will leave just about everybody worse off, with less care at a higher cost. This bad bill would rip health insurance money away from millions of people--24 million over 10 years, and 14 million next year alone. Americans who are lucky enough to hold on to coverage if this bill becomes law will pay more for it in premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, especially people age 50 and up. Mr. Speaker, the deals that were cut last night to win more Republican votes for TrumpCare would be even more devastating. Trips to the emergency room, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity care both before and after birth, prescription drugs, lab tests, and more essential services could be cut. Apparently, some people don't think these services deserve guaranteed health insurance. They would let insurers sell skimpy plans that don't even cover patients' basic needs. Democrats believe we can, and should, work together to improve the ACA, not to work on a misguided bill that would gut it. We owe this to folks like Amanda Miller of Denver. Amanda changed jobs last year. During her period of unemployment, she and her husband decided the smart thing to do was to get coverage to fill the gap. Thank God they did. Shortly after that, she and her husband got into a serious car accident. Amanda walked away unscathed, but her husband was badly injured. She could see more of his skull than she could see of his scalp. Luckily, there were some nurses in a car behind them, and they stabilized him and took him to the emergency room. Their hospital bill of $16,000 was paid in full, thanks to Amanda's coverage through the ACA. What do we say to Amanda? Can we guarantee her better insurance and a better financial situation? I don't think so. Let's defeat this bill, and let's start working towards a good one that will cover everybody.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, we are not even a full month into the new Presidency. Yet, the President and the Republicans in Congress have already launched numerous attacks on women's health and access to care. Here's just a few of the examples aside from today. They are charging ahead to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without making any promises to preserve the vital protections for women that are in that bill. They imposed and dramatically expanded the global gag rule, which harms women's access to health care around the world. And just after the historic Women's March, House Republicans passed H.R. 7, an extreme bill that effectively bans private insurance companies from covering comprehensive healthcare services. But here we are again today, with another bill that threatens access to family planning care for millions of our most vulnerable citizens by attacking title X. Title X is the only Federal program dedicated solely to family planning, which includes a range of services that help women and their partners prepare for pregnancy and ensure healthy spacing between births. Title X helps 4 million people who are uninsured. Title X centers also play an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy, and title X centers are also major points of access in our safety net. Six in 10 women who go to a title X center consider it their major source of health care. What this rule that Republicans want to roll back does is it simply reinforces longstanding requirements that say that States cannot discriminate against providers for reasons that are unrelated to their qualifications to perform family planning services when distributing title X funding. In other words, if an organization provides abortions with its own private money but it qualifies for title X, it can still get that funding. Now I keep hearing from my colleagues that this violates states' rights, but that completely ignores how Federal programs work. Virtually all Federal funding opportunities require a State to adhere to certain standards to ensure policy goals are met, and that is exactly what this rule did. Republicans will also argue that community health centers can fill all the gaps created and accessed by denying these centers title X funding. This claim has been debunked on numerous occasions. For example, in 21 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net provider in the area. That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated, if Planned Parenthood were defunded, as many as 390,000 women would lose access to care, and 650,000 women would have reduced access. That is why repealing this rule is a serious problem. Just this afternoon I read a quote, and here's what it said: ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Let me say that again. ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.'' Who said this? Margaret Sanger? No. Cecile Richards? No. Hillary Clinton? No. The person who said this this afternoon is the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. I couldn't agree with him any more when it comes to title X family planning money. This should be made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats in Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).

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

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), the chair of the Democratic Women's Working Group.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the other side is reserving its time to close. Is that correct?

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).