Diana DeGette

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when I started this debate, I said that this bill is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I meant it. We have heard throughout this last hour many calls for conscience, many assertions that people shouldn't be forced to perform abortions against their religious convictions. We even just now saw a quote from my hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., here on the floor, talking about civil rights. Well, guess what? As speaker after speaker on our side has pointed out, under current law, providers are not required to provide abortions. This has been the law since the 1970s, when the Church amendment was passed. In the 1970s, when the Church amendment was passed--it has been law ever since then--I was in high school at that time. It says that providers do not have to provide abortions against their religious convictions, and they have legal recourse if they don't want to do it. The Church amendment was expanded in 2005 by the so-called Weldon amendment, which has been an appropriations rider since that time. What the Weldon amendment says is that no Federal funding will be made available to government entities that subject a healthcare entity, physicians, hospitals, or HMOs to discrimination because it does not provide, pay for, cover or refer for abortions. So, in fact, under current law, if somebody is being made to provide abortion services against their will, they have recourse. And guess what? In every single example that the majority gave today, they had recourse. And they won. Let's talk about the Catherine DeCarlo case, the nurse in New York that so many of my colleagues have referred to, who, by her employer, was required, against her ethical convictions, to provide abortion services. She filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, as she is allowed to under law. An investigation ensued. And guess what? The hospital was required to take remedial action and change their policy. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the decision from the Department of Health and Human Services entered under the Obama administration giving Ms. DeCarlo these rights. Department of Health & Human Services, February 1, 2013. Re Reference Number: 10-109676 Matthew S. Bowman, Esq., Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC. David Reich, MD, Interim President, The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. Dear Mr. Bowman and Dr. Reich: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its investigation of the above- referenced complaint filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund (the complainant), on behalf of Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo (the affected party) against The Mount Sinai Hospital (the Hospital). The complaint alleges that, on May 24, 2009, the Hospital forced the affected party to assist in the performance of an abortion procedure despite her express religious objections. The complaint also alleges that, because of the affected party's initial refusal to participate in the May 24, 2009 procedure, the Hospital discriminated against her by: (i) reducing the number of on- call shifts she received for the month of August 2009; and (ii) asking her to sign a statement of her willingness to participate in abortion procedures in emergencies as a condition to being assigned more on-call shifts for September 2009 than she was assigned for August 2009. OCR initiated an investigation of this complaint consistent with its authority under the Church Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7; Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 238n; and the Weldon Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. G, Sec. 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209 (collectively referred to as the Federal health care provider conscience statutes) and their implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 88. According to information available on its website, the Hospital is a 1,171-bed tertiary-care teaching facility that oversees approximately 58,000 patients receiving inpatient care, 530,000 outpatient visits, and 98,000 emergency room visits each year. The Hospital is part of The Mount Sinai Medical Center. The Hospital receives federal financial assistance from HHS under the Public Health Service Act and through its participation in Medicare and Medicaid. During the course of the investigation, OCR reviewed information submitted by the complainant and the Hospital. OCR interviewed the complainant, the affected party, Hospital staff and administration, and physicians providing services at the Hospital. OCR also coordinated the handling of the complaint with the staff of the HHS program(s) from which the Hospital receives HHS funding. The complainant indicated that the affected party has been employed in the Hospital's Perioperative Services Care Center since August 9, 2004, and has strongly-held religious beliefs and moral convictions that she should not participate in abortion procedures. During the course of its investigation, OCR learned that elective abortion procedures are scheduled on weekdays at the Hospital, staffed by individuals who have agreed in advance to participate in such procedures. Urgent/ non-elective abortion procedures that occur over the weekend are staffed by Operating Room (O.R.) nurses and surgical technicians who have signed up and are assigned to be ``on call'' for that specific weekend. The complainant indicated that the affected party was on on-call and called to the O.R. for a procedure to take place during the morning of Sunday, May 24, 2009. The complainant informed OCR that, shortly after the affected party learned that the case was an abortion procedure, she reminded her supervisor of her religious objection and asked to be excused from the case, but the Hospital insisted that she assist in the procedure. During OCR's investigation of this matter, the Hospital stated that it did not force the affected party to assist in the performance of an abortion procedure, and that it did not discriminate or retaliate against her for her initial refusal to assist in the abortion procedure. Nonetheless, the Hospital also indicated that, since the events of May 24, 2009, it has implemented measures to address the administrative issues that prevented the Hospital from locating a replacement nurse for the affected party on the day of the procedure. In particular, OCR learned that the Hospital adopted a revision to its O.R. scheduling policies and procedures, effective August 2009, which requires abortion procedures to be scheduled with the O.R. with as much notice as possible. The revised policy also establishes a process wherein the Hospital maintains: (i) contact information for the O.R. nurses and surgical technicians, and (ii) a list indicating which nurses and surgical technicians are willing to participate, and which are not willing to participate, in abortion procedures. Further, the revised policy instructs O.R. scheduling staff and on-duty nurse managers that, in the event on-call O.R. nurses or surgical technicians must be called in for an abortion procedure, the O.R. scheduling staff must inform the on-duty nurse manager. If the scheduled on-call O.R. nurse or surgical technician is listed as being unwilling to assist, the scheduling staff (and the nurse manager) will use the aforementioned lists to contact and secure an O.R. nurse or surgical technician, as appropriate, who is willing to assist in the performance of an abortion. Subsequently as a result of OCR's investigation, the Hospital has agreed to take certain other actions to ensure and strengthen its commitment and ongoing compliance with the applicable Federal health care provider conscience statutes. OCR notes that the Hospital has taken significant affirmative steps to address the compliance concerns identified in the complaint, and the following listed actions provide additional safeguards for objecting health care personnel while ensuring patients have access to needed health care. Specifically, the Hospital has agreed in writing to: 1. Comply with the provisions of the Church Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7 et seq. 2. Continue to use its best efforts to ensure that non- objecting health care personnel are available to perform their job duties with respect to abortion procedures, including any abortion procedures that occur over the weekend; 3. Revise Human Resources Policy No. 15.3, titled ``Exclusion from Patient Care--Employee Rights,'' to state that ``The Mount Sinai Hospital does not discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he or she performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, or because he or she refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a sterilization procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.'' 4. Continue to post the Hospital's Human Resources Policy No. 15.3, titled ``Exclusion from Patient Care--Employee Rights,'' electronically on the Hospital's intranet and post in hard copy on the Operating Room notice board; and 5. Train O.R. managers, nurses and surgical technicians about the Hospital's obligations to comply with the Church Amendments and train Surgical Admitting Planning office administrative staff to ensure that O.R. nurses' and surgical technicians' objecting or non-objecting status is properly recorded. In addition, OCR provided the Hospital with technical assistance regarding its grievance procedure and its list identifying whether O.R. nurses and surgical technicians are willing or not to participate in abortion procedures. The Hospital incorporated OCR's technical assistance, further ensuring the Hospital's compliance with the applicable Federal health care provider conscience statutes. Based on the above-described commitments and actions, OCR finds that the Hospital took steps, subsequent to May 24, 2009, and during the course of OCR's investigation, which have sufficiently addressed and resolved the allegation regarding the May 24, 2009 procedure. With respect to the allegation that the Hospital discriminated against the affected party by reducing the amount of weekend on-call shifts to which she was assigned for August 2009, the evidence gathered during OCR's investigation did not support such a finding. The affected party asserted that there were multiple sign-up sheets and she had signed up for approximately 7-8 on-call shifts for August 2009. The Hospital indicated that there was only one set of sign-up sheets, and the affected party signed up for a single shift, which the Hospital assigned to her. While the Hospital's documentation does not definitively establish that there was not a second set of sign-up sheets for August 2009, OCR's interviews of multiple O.R. nurses indicate that O.R. nurses and surgical technicians signed up at a single location on a single set of sign-in sheets. Accordingly, OCR has determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Hospital discriminated against the affected party when assigning on-call shifts for the month of August 2009. The complainant also alleged that the Hospital discriminated against the affected party by asking her to sign a statement of her willingness to participate in abortion procedures in emergencies as a condition to being assigned more on-call shifts for September 2009 than she was assigned for August 2009. After interviewing the affected party and other staff involved in the alleged conversations, OCR found that at least one conversation occurred on or about July 16, 2009, involving a request for the affected party to sign a statement. However, there was substantial dispute as to the substantive content of any conversation, including the content of any requested statement. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this matter, including that the affected party did not agree to sign any statement and the Hospital subsequently assigned her on-call shifts for September 2009 after she signed up for them, OCR has determined that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the Hospital discriminated against the affected party by asking her to sign such a statement. Further, on February 4, 2011, the complainant contacted OCR to report an alleged act of retaliation by the Hospital against the affected party for the filing of this complaint. Following the May 24, 2009 procedure that is the subject of this matter, the affected party sought assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) at the Hospital. The complainant alleged that, on February 3, 2011, the Hospital informed the affected party that it would not provide her with a copy of her EAP records unless she first obtained a court order, because the affected party had filed OCR and judicial complaints against the Hospital. A claim that the Hospital's actions with respect to the affected party's EAP records amounts to another act of discrimination under the Church Amendments is not supported by the evidence. During OCR's investigation of the complainants associated HIPAA Privacy Rule complaint, TN 11-123374, OCR learned that all employees of the Hospital who seek to obtain a copy of their EAP records must first obtain a court order or subpoena, regardless of whether: (i) the employee has or has not filed a complaint or lawsuit against the Hospital, or (ii) the employee has or has not refused to assist with an abortion procedure, and irrespective of what the employee's religious beliefs are about abortion. This determination of compliance is not intended, nor should it be construed, to cover any issues, regarding the Hospital's compliance status with the Church Amendments, that are not specifically addressed in this letter. It neither covers issues or authorities not specifically addressed herein nor does it preclude future determinations of compliance that are based on subsequent investigations. Please take all necessary steps to ensure that no adverse action is taken against the complainant, the affected party, or any other individual for the filing of this complaint, providing information to OCR, or otherwise participating in this investigation. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary for OCR to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event OCR receives such a request, we will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If you have additional questions or concems, please contact Frank J. Musumici, M.S., Supervisory Equal Opportunity Specialist. Sincerely, Linda C. Colon, Regional Manager.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Colorado Delegation of the U.S. House of Representatives, I am highlighting an issue of importance to Colorado and its community of senior citizens. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016 and sent it to the President for his signature. This reauthorization ensures that a wide range of social and nutritional services, directed to assist senior citizens, is not disrupted. While the reauthorization improves the status quo for the state of Colorado, I still have concerns about the continuing inequity in funding going to our state in comparison to the rest of the country. In an attempt to protect certain states with shrinking senior populations, Congress in 2006 changed the Older Americans Act funding formula to ensure states received a guaranteed funding level. This is known as the ``Hold Harmless Funding Formula.'' Due to Colorado's growing senior population and this provision from 2006, Colorado (among other states) saw massive cuts during sequestration when other states did not. Instead of allowing the funding to go to states with growing senior populations, the hold harmless funding formula in the current reauthorization continues the disproportionate trend. It prevents funding in states with lower senior populations from going to states with growing levels of senior citizens. While I am supportive of the services provided by the Older Americans Act, Congress' priority should be ensuring the stability of the programs upon which millions of seniors around the country depend. I believe that moving forward, it is imperative that steps are taken in future reauthorizations to safeguard services for all seniors regardless of their state of residence. It is my hope that as Congress continues to address issues that are important to all senior citizens, we find a path forward to address the issue I've raised today.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Columbine is in my district, and I was in Congress when the terrible shooting in Columbine happened. Who will forget that day, all those students marching out of the school with their hands held up so they could show the police that they weren't those terrible shooters. Who can forget the terrible tragedy reflected in the mothers' faces when they saw that their children weren't those children that were bused to safety? Who can forget the lingering aspects that Columbine has shown us, year after year, tragedy after tragedy? I can't tell you the number of times I have repeated that horror in my own life, watching on TV when the Aurora shooting, just a few miles from my house, occurred. A masked man came in and, with an assault rifle and high-capacity magazine clips, shot so many people in just a few minutes. Just a few weeks ago, when we saw, in Florida, one lone gunman with an assault rifle and high-capacity magazines just mowing down so many people who were having fun, who can forget the reflection in those mothers' faces? But for every terrible tragedy that we have like that, we have thousands of more people who are killed on our streets, in our urban areas, and around our country, and who are killed in terrible domestic violence cases. Just last week, when I was at home in Denver, just a few blocks from my husband's law office, a man walked into an office and shot a woman, and then turned the gun on himself. I can't tell you how I felt that day, when my husband sent me an email, seemingly out of the blue, that said: ``Don't worry. I'm on lockdown. I'm okay.'' This has become just routine in Americans' lives, and it is wrong. It is wrong. We can't continue like this as a country. We can't continue to have a moment of silence every time there is a mass murder, and to tut-tut every time we hear of someone like that woman who was shot in my district, and then do nothing. This is why we had our sit-in before the July Fourth recess. And I will tell you what, those actions woke up my constituents. My office here in Washington, D.C., and my office in Denver, Colorado, were inundated with phone calls from people saying: ``What can we do? We so desperately want something to happen.'' This is what I said then, and this is what I say now: We cannot stop until we pass commonsense gun safety legislation. What does this mean? Well, for starters, you would think Congress, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, could say, if you are on a terrorist watch list, you should not be able to buy a gun. Surely we can stipulate to that. You would think that we would agree with the vast majority of American people, Democrats and Republicans, people all around the country, that people should have thorough and sufficient background checks before they can obtain a weapon. You would surely think that we would allow the Federal Government to conduct research on gun safety so that we would know, as a matter of public health, what we need to do to keep our children safe in their schools, our children safe on their street corners, and in their school yards. You would think, beyond that, that we could have a rational discussion, not marred by the very powerful gun lobbyists, saying: What can we do to make sure that somebody, for whatever reason they might have, doesn't get an assault weapon and walk into a theater and kill scores of people with a high-capacity magazine in just a few minutes? You would think we could do that, and I am hoping that we will do that. I am hoping that the tide has turned. Today, we will take up mental health legislation that was developed in my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is a bipartisan bill. I worked hard with Chairman Murphy and Chairman Upton on this bill, and also with the Democrats on our side of the aisle, Congressman Pallone and Congressman Green and others. It is a good bill, but it is just a first step. We need to do a lot more with mental health in this country and, beyond that, we need to do a lot more on gun safety. Nobody should assume that this bill we are voting on today is a substitute for a rational, thorough, bipartisan conversation on gun safety. I look forward to taking the terrible tragedies that we have seen the 20 years I have been in Congress and to dedicating commonsense gun safety legislation to all those lives that were lost.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on this wonderful bill is the result of longstanding efforts in the Energy and Commerce Committee to come to a bipartisan compromise on mental health legislation. I particularly want to thank my compadre, my chairman, Mr. Murphy, for his hard work on this. I have spent many, many hours talking to him about this bill over the last few years, and I am happy to have it come together. This bill really incorporates a number of our positive changes that included key provisions from the Comprehensive Behavioral Health Reform and Recovery Act, which I am an original cosponsor, and other bills. But as Mr. McDermott and others on this side of the aisle have said, we still have a lot more work to do. This bill is really just the first step towards true reform. And if we want to make a difference, Congress really does need to provide the resources needed. We have heard people talking about overfilled jails. We have heard people talking about parents who can't find beds for their tremendously mentally ill children. We have heard about the lack of truly educated professionals. These things can only be achieved with resources and money. And so I truly see this bill as the first step towards a very robust mental health system in this country. The last thing I want to say is, action on mental health legislation does not excuse inaction on gun violence prevention legislation. We must do something as well as passing comprehensive mental health legislation to respond to the gun violence epidemic. Americans, my constituents, want us to take these steps. They have made this abundantly clear in the last few weeks, and I am urging that we have a vote separately on those issues. But for today, let's all vote ``yes'' on this piece of legislation, and then let's move forward for the important steps we need to take.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Grayson Amendment Number 12. This amendment would finally remove a longstanding, harmful appropriations rider that deprives federal employees of coverage for the full range of reproductive health care. As co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, I'm routinely dismayed by the repeated inclusion in legislation of divisive riders that interfere with women's health care decisions. Why must important bills that get the people's business done be misused by politicians to limit women's reproductive rights and choices? For too long, Congress has interfered with women's health decisions through bans on insurance coverage for reproductive health care. I applaud Mr. Grayson for taking action to lift these unnecessary and harmful restrictions in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, these restrictions exist in many other places throughout federal law. We should do away with them all. Every single year, my Republican colleagues feel the need to include provisions attacking women's health in the Financial Services Appropriations bill. This year is no exception. As usual this year's bill is riddled with such provisions. But this time, Republicans have taken it one step further. An amendment filed by Rep. Palmer has also been made in order on this appropriations bill. Mr. Palmer's amendment would prohibit Washington, DC from enforcing the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, which the city enacted to help protect women and their families from employment discrimination based on reproductive health choices. Preventing DC from enforcing this law is egregious. It is beyond inappropriate for Congress to strike down state laws that help protect women from employment discrimination based on choices such as using birth control, undergoing in vitro fertilization, or having an abortion.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. We have been talking a lot about the, admittedly, very arcane details of this bill. I want to talk for a minutes about how this bill is going to impact the families of America. Think about someone you know and love who will probably start a family in the next decade. I think of my own two daughters who are in their 20s. That future parent will be very excited about the arrival of a child. The parents will create a nursery in their home for their new baby, a space that is clean, warm, and safe. Well, they think it is safe. But right now, under current law, that rocking chair in the corner could be covered with toxic flame retardants. The fresh paint on the walls could contain harmful volatile organic compounds. The rug beneath the crib probably has been treated with formaldehyde, which is a carcinogen. Parents and children should not have to worry whether the most basic, everyday things they do are toxic to their health. TSCA has been a flawed piece of legislation since it passed in 1976. Nobody liked it--the environmental community, the chemical industry, or the parents of America. We need to bring some certainty to the regulation of the tens of thousands of chemicals that we have out there, and that is what this bill will do. Did you know that under this bill, for the first time, EPA will have access to the information it needs on a chemical? For the first time, EPA will regulate the worst chemicals out there, like arsenic? For the first time, the EPA will have deadlines for review so that Americans are protected from dangerous chemicals as soon as practicable? And for the first time, Americans will know exactly what is out there in commerce? For the first time, every nursery in America will be clean, warm, and safe. That is what America deserves. Is this bill perfect? No. But it is what we are expected to do as Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans--protect the safety of our children and generations to come. I really want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko on our side of the aisle. I want to thank the rock star, Mr. Shimkus, who I have been working with, along with Mr. Green, since 2007 to bring this to reality. This truly is a great day for the families of America, and I am really proud that we are able to get this done. I hope my colleagues will look at the bill in totality; I hope you will see how, finally, we are going to be able to actually regulate these chemicals; and I hope you will vote ``yes.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of an extraordinary constituent, the Reverend Dr. Paul M. Martin, who, as pastor of Macedonia Baptist Church for 16 years, was a change agent in the Denver community. Paul's passing in March shocked and saddened the many people he touched in a life filled with love, hope and purpose. We continue to grieve, but with the perspective of these past few weeks, we've also been able to take some consolation in memories of this extraordinary man and the knowledge that his legacy lives on within us. Paul Martin was a man of the people. Well educated and worldly, he nevertheless found endless satisfaction in working deep within the community, rolling up his sleeves and diving into the day-to-day matters that affect so many lives--from the parochial to the profound. I especially appreciated that the very same man who reached countless numbers of the faithful via a successful radio ministry also chose to serve on the committees to ensure that the development of DIA and Stapleton were done with community interests in mind. And for my own part, I'll never forget how the friendship and support Paul gave me through my years of public service. I first met Paul and his wonderful wife and soulmate, Agnes, when my church, Montview Presbyterian, partnered in worship with Macedonia. I spent so many special Sundays sitting in the Macedonia choir loft with my fellow choir-mates from both churches, listening to Paul's inspirational sermons. I am sure there are many others in Colorado, in California and in places around the world where Paul preached and taught who have similar stories to tell about his influence on the paths they followed. Paul was a voice of wisdom, consolation and inspiration. He will be deeply missed, but we are grateful that he was such a key part of our community and our lives for so long. Although a family commitment prevents me from being with you today in person, my spirit is there in solidarity. To Agnes, the Martin family, and the entire Macedonia community, I send my prayers and deepest condolences.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my thanks to those of my colleague, Mrs. Ellmers. I want to also thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone. I want to thank Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Dent, and Mrs. Capps, all for supporting this important measure. This bill updates the DOE's energy conservation standards to keep with the innovations that have taken place over the last decade in household and commercial lighting. While the latest lighting may look similar on the exterior, it actually runs on new and exciting technology. Frankly, as you have heard from the other speakers, we need to update our regulatory scheme to keep these innovations going. Specifically, when the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2005, it directed the Department of Energy to develop a conservation standard for external power supply products. Because of the inadvertently broad definition we created for external power supplies, emerging LED drivers were swept up into a standard that, as you have heard so eloquently from the other speakers, just doesn't make any sense. That means that, although LED drivers are highly energy-efficient, they can't meet the EPS conservation standard, and their ability to compete in the competitive lighting market is now an open question. Now, this might seem like a technicality, but in the real world, this bill is vitally important. Just last week, for example, General Electric and JPMorgan Chase rang the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange to announce a deal for the world's largest single-order installation of LED lighting. GE will install LED lighting at 5,000 JPMorgan Chase bank branches this year, which will cut the bank's lighting bill in half. But unless we pass this bill quickly, the new lighting at JPMorgan Chase locations technically won't meet basic efficiency standards. It is urgent that we pass this bill now and that we pass it quickly through the other body because these new efficiency standards are going into effect. And while everybody agrees LED lighting is important, we are still coming against the letter of the law. And so that is why I want to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle for realizing how incredibly important this is. By passing the EPS Improvement Act of 2016, we will let the LED lighting revolution continue. We will help lower energy prices for every American business and household, and will continue our goal of more and more efficient energy. Mr. Speaker, if my friend across the aisle still has no speakers, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, having no other speakers, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership has a funny way of wishing the working families of America Happy New Year. Under this bill, the first substantive legislation of 2016, women and their families will be hit with a one-two punch to their access to health care. First, with the latest attempt to repeal the ACA, House Republicans would remove the tax credits that help millions of Americans afford quality health insurance. When families lose that insurance, women would also lose their free annual wellness exams they get from their providers under the ACA. Just to pile on, at the same time millions of women would lose their free wellness exams, this bill would inhibit their ability to get affordable well-woman and family-planning services from Planned Parenthood. More than 3 million American women and men get essential health care from Planned Parenthood every year, and even more would need to if the ACA were repealed. In many parts of the country, Planned Parenthood is the only provider that offers access to reproductive health services within hundreds of miles. There are no health clinics that would take over that gap. Eliminating Federal funding to the organization would limit women's access to cancer screenings, breast exams, and so much more, and all because of an unfounded vendetta against Planned Parenthood. Happy New Year, women and families of America.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and achievements of George T. Sakato. George Sakato was born in Colton, California in 1921 and grew up in Southern California. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, his family moved from California to avoid the mass internment of Japanese Americans, and his family resettled in Arizona. In 1944, at the age of 23, Mr. Sakato volunteered for the U.S. Army and joined the all-Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat Team. At 5 feet 4 inches, he was not your storybook soldier. What he lacked in stature, however, he made up for in bravery and devotion to his brothers in arms. In October of 1944, Private Sakato's unit was sent on a mission to rescue 281 captured American soldiers in the Vosges Mountains of northeast France. In the firefight, Private Sakato's squad leader was killed after his unit pushed enemy German combatants from their defensive positions. With no commanding officer, Private Sakato stepped up to lead his squad. He charged the enemy position. Singlehandedly, he killed 12 enemy soldiers and then, with the help of his unit, took 34 more as prisoners. For his bravery, Private Sakato received the Distinguished Service Cross and was recommended for the Medal of Honor. Yet, like so many other Japanese-American soldiers during WWII, he was denied that honor due to deeply ingrained anti-Japanese racism. More than a half century later, on June 21, 2000, Mr. Sakato and 21 other Asian-American veterans were finally given the recognition they had earned for their actions in combat and were awarded the Medal of Honor by President Clinton. On Dec. 2nd, 2015, at the age of 94, George Sakato died in Denver, Colorado. George Sakato was one of the trailblazing men and women whose hands have shaped the United States into the great nation it is today. His example of bravery, humility, and love for his country is one to admire and emulate. My condolences go to his daughter Leslie, and the rest of the Sakato family.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 50th anniversary of the University of Colorado's Nurse Practitioner program. In 1965, CU College of Nursing professor Loretta Ford and CU School of Medicine professor Henry Silver came together to create the nation's first nurse practitioner training program. Motivated by a desire to increase access to pediatric care in underserved rural and urban communities, they sought to expand and empower the role of nurses on the front lines of health care. Their efforts led to the establishment of the nation's modern advanced practice nursing workforce. Their idea caught fire in 1966 when Time Magazine profiled one of the programs first graduates, Sue Stearly, who was successfully practicing in the small town of Trinidad, Colorado. Time called CU students ``a new breed of nurse.'' By 1973, sixty-five nurse practitioner training programs existed across the country. Today there are more than 205,000 nurse practitioners in the United States making more than 916 million patient visits per year according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. Today's nurse practitioners diagnose and treat patients in a variety of primary, acute, and specialty care settings. They are essential to meeting this country's healthcare workforce needs. According to Colorado Health Careers, within the next decade, nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists will be among the nation's ten fastest-growing occupations. Nurse practitioners from the CU College of Nursing are at work across America. The College of Nursing's Pediatric Nurse Practitioner program continues to be one of the strongest in the country, and today the college leads the way with a variety of specialized nurse practitioner programs in fields such as psychiatric mental health and women's health. On October 2nd, the CU College of Nursing, along with the CU School of Medicine, celebrated the 50th Anniversary of their groundbreaking Nurse Practitioner Program. I invite you to join me in honoring the efforts of pioneering educators Loretta Ford and Henry Silver, who helped to spark this remarkable change in American medical care.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, since a series of deceptive and highly edited videos taken at Planned Parenthood facilities were released to the public, three separate congressional committees have leapt to conclusions, holding hearings and investigations along the way. However, on the subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member and which has primary jurisdiction over this matter, we did extensive research. We found out that Planned Parenthood broke no laws according to an extensive memo prepared by the Democratic committee staff. So now what are we going to do? We are going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars having another sham committee. That is a ridiculous waste of money. I have a proposal for all of my colleagues. Let's spend our time talking on the things that our constituents want their hard-earned taxpayer money spent on: reauthorizing the highway bill, addressing the looming expiration of our debt ceiling, not to mention an overdue bill for funding the Federal Government. That is what they care about. I just want to say once again, for the umpteenth time, for the Record, there is no public money spent on abortion. There is no Federal money spent on abortion. So what we are talking about right here is a totally useless and expensive investigation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Metropolitan State University of Denver, or MSU Denver, on its 50th anniversary. The extraordinary faculty and staff at MSU Denver have had an incredible impact on the lives of students in my district and on the Denver community as a whole. Since its founding in 1965, MSU Denver has been known as a gateway to opportunity. The University opens its doors to students from all walks of life and provides rigorous academic coursework relevant to the Colorado economy. The University formed out of an idea for a new, different type of college, dedicated to supporting hard-working, scrappy students who might not otherwise have an opportunity to attend an institution of higher education. As a sign of its future success, MSU Denver enrolled double the number of students than anticipated when it first opened its doors on October 1, 1965. Today, MSU Denver is Colorado's urban land-grant university, offering individualized, relevant bachelor's and select master's degrees to more undergraduate Coloradans than any other four-year university in the state. It has served as a leader in diverse enrollment among Colorado's four-year universities with 35 percent students of color and 32 percent first-generation students this year. The University has been a leader in educating students to think critically, solve problems, address community concerns, and meet Colorado's workforce needs. Most of the school's 85,000 alumni have stayed within our state and continue to contribute to the economic and cultural vitality of Colorado. I am not the only one that has recognized the value of the education MSU Denver provides to its students. Recently, the Military Times named MSU Denver the best college in the state for veterans. Further, MSU Denver strives to keep tuition affordable while providing a quality education. It has consistently been recognized in numerous rankings and articles for its affordability, its return on investment, and its incredible value in education. We are truly fortunate to have such a valuable resource in the First Congressional District. For the last five decades, Metropolitan State University of Denver has transformed the lives of countless students, served as a courageous leader in higher education, and boldly advanced the well-being of communities throughout the State of Colorado. I congratulate each and every member of the MSU Denver community on this 50th anniversary. I wish MSU Denver continued success and growth for many years to come.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard a lot of emotion today, Madam Speaker, and a lot of ideas and ugly things being thrown around, but as a lawyer with legal training, I did something radical. I actually read this bill. It didn't take me very long, because, as Mr. Farr pointed out, it is only two pages long. I want to talk about what this bill would really do because this bill would do far, far more than its proponents claim that it would do. Let me say, first of all, there is no Federal money that is spent on abortion in most cases in the United States. This has been the law of the land for a long time. I disagree with that law because I think it limits full reproductive health for women who can least afford it, but that is the law of the land. So what are we talking about here? What we are talking about is States being able to deny money to anybody who is directly or indirectly involved with abortion services with nongovernmental money, with private money from women and their family, with insurance money, with nongovernmental money. So here is how this bill would work. A State could decide that, if a hospital provided abortions with nongovernment money, it simply wasn't going to authorize State money or Medicaid money to that hospital. I don't mean just Medicaid money for women's services; I mean all Medicaid money or State money, all money for services. This bill could say that an OB-GYN who has co-privileges at a hospital that provides abortion could now not serve any--any--Medicaid patients. This bill would say that a doctor who provides services at a neighborhood healthcare clinic who has privileges at a hospital that provides abortion could now be banned from taking Medicaid patients. That is how broad this bill is written. Madam Speaker, what this would do is it would allow States to terminate all government funds to any entity that directly or indirectly provides abortions with nongovernment dollars. So what would this do? Well, 72 million people in this country are on Medicaid right now. These people are men, these people are women, and these people are children. These people are people who take women's medical services and those who don't need them. These 72 million Americans risk the loss of all of their healthcare services under Medicaid because of this radical bill. Now, okay, let's say that won't really happen. Let's say that is just an overbroad interpretation of the bill. So then our colleagues on the other side say, well, let's just limit ourselves to community health centers. If we use this bill to deny funding for Planned Parenthood, everyone will go to community health centers. Let's see how that would work. Right now, we have 24 million patients in this country in community health centers. The community health centers themselves tell us, for every one of those 24 million patients they are taking, right now they are turning away seven people. So we have 4.2 million Planned Parenthood patients. Let's say those 4.2 Planned Parenthood patients decide to go to the community health clinics. That is not going to work. They tried this in Louisiana. In Louisiana, a Federal judge found there would be 29 providers for 5,000 women to get healthcare services. That is untenable, that is unacceptable, and it puts our Nation's women's health at risk. Listen, since we have been debating this bill today, we are 1 hour closer to a government shutdown, and we have done nothing to make sure we are not going to do that. I would suggest that we refocus our efforts, that we stop beating up Planned Parenthood, that we stop beating up women's health, that we get together collectively and we say: How are we going to keep this government open? How are we going to work together to make sure every man and woman in this country has a good job, good health insurance, and that they can provide for their families? That is what we are elected to do, and that is what I commit myself to do on behalf of this body. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

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