Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. Let me say that again. There is no taxpayer funding for abortions. There hasn't been for many decades because of the Hyde amendment. Under the Affordable Care Act, that prohibition did not change. Now, some of us might disagree with the Hyde amendment, but that is the law of the land, and it was a carefully constructed compromise under the Affordable Care Act. This bill would be a vast expansion of the restriction of a woman's right to choose what type of insurance she can purchase with the consultation of her doctor and her husband because it would prevent women from purchasing insurance with their own money on the exchanges, and that would be a restriction on their rights. So I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation, and let's talk about some things that really matter, like jobs, child care, and pay equity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I am going to state this as simply as I can. There is no public funding for abortion. Whether you like it or not, the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of this land for decades now, says there is no public funding for abortion. That has not changed. There is no public funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act or any other government program. This bill would vastly expand the current restrictions on a woman's right to get her own health care through her insurance, with her own private money, that she, her family, and her doctor think she needs. Let me say how this would work. Under H.R. 7, people who buy their insurance in exchanges--and their employers--now would not be able to spend their own private dollars to buy insurance that they need for themselves and their families. This not only would be a radical expansion over current law, it would be a terrible wedge between patients and their doctors. I do not care how many polls there are that you might cite, because the vast majority of Americans think that a woman's private health care decisions should be made between herself, her family, and her doctor--certainly, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. H.R. 7 is an idea that has been proposed time and again. It is not going anywhere. I am sure it will probably pass this House today, and it will go over to the other body, and it will die. If not, the President will veto it. Here are my questions to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why aren't we spending this week talking about how the women of America can get better paychecks? Why aren't we spending our time talking this week about how the women and men of America can get tax credits so that the children they do have can go to child care that is quality child care? Why aren't we spending our time this week talking about how women and men should be able to get paid the same amount for doing the very same job? That is what I think this Congress should be spending its time doing, not passing these bills which are false statements about a woman's private decisions about her health care. I urge the body to defeat this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just have to end with what I started with. There is no Federal taxpayer funding for abortion. There has not been for many decades. Some people, like me, think that this is an ill-conceived public policy, but it is the law of the land, it is the law of the land every year in the appropriations bill, and it is part of the compromise that was negotiated with the Affordable Care Act, so we need to keep that in mind as we talk about what this legislation does. What this legislation will do is it will take away the ability of women in the exchanges to buy comprehensive health care insurance with their own money. Now, I heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle today talk about their deep concerns about abortion and unwanted pregnancies. Well, I will tell you something: if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies--which all of us in this room do--what you need to do is give women quality health insurance with robust family planning and a full range of health care services. The Guttmacher Institute, in a 2010 study, showed, happily, that teen pregnancy in this country was at the lowest rate in over 30 years. Do you know why? Two reasons: number one, birth control for these teenagers; and, number two, comprehensive health insurance. This Congress which has passed, over and over again, restrictions on birth control access--not just for teens, but for all women--and restrictions on comprehensive family planning is actually passing legislation that is going to stop this decrease in unwanted teen pregnancies. It is an ill-conceived policy. It is a wrongheaded policy. If we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, the way to do it is to have comprehensive health insurance for all American women. Now, the majority, at the last minute, pulled the bill with the egregious provisions on rape that would have required rape victims to affirmatively go to the police before they could raise the exception, but don't make any mistake about it, this bill is just as egregious as that bill. The reason it is is because, in an unprecedented move, it stops American women and their families from being able to get comprehensive health insurance with their own money. What would happen is it would open up a significant divide between the coverage that large employers would give to families and small employers and individuals. Now, the other thing this does is it reopens the debate and the compromise that we had in the Affordable Care Act. The compromise we made in that bill was that there would be no public funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act. It was negotiated, it was agreed upon, and as the other side admitted, the President issued an executive order saying he would enforce the current law on that, and, in fact, that is what happened. The act required two separate premium payments for women and their families who receive premium tax credits and choose coverage that includes abortion services. The act is clear in its language. No portion of premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplaces that relates to abortion services. The compromise was agreed upon by pro-life groups like the Catholic Health Association and everybody else, and now, this compromise is being thrown out the window. Well, our opponents say there was a GAO report last September that said that insurance companies were not segregating the funds, so they say that that means, somehow, Federal dollars are being used to pay for abortions. Well, after that GAO study came out, Madam Speaker, the HHS promulgated a new rule clarifying the agreement under the Affordable Care Act that the funds had to be segregated, and they promulgated this rule on Wednesday, November 26. Madam Speaker, I will insert that proposed rule into the Record at the end of my remarks. So this compromise is being honored by the administration. Now, early in this debate, I asked my opponents to please give me one example where Federal taxpayer dollars have been used to pay for abortions. I haven't heard that example, and it is because it is not happening. This is a false issue that is being raised. I would submit to everybody here: let's stop talking about this false issue just because there are a whole bunch of people in town who want us to pass some legislation; let's talk about some real issues. We just received a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House. Not surprisingly, the administration has said that the President would veto this bill. The bill is likely dead on arrival in the Senate, but even if it did pass, it would be vetoed. I have a suggestion for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: let's take up some issues that the women and families of America care about; let's take up the issue of how we are going to give women good jobs with comprehensive health insurance, so they can make their own decisions, along with their family and their doctor. Let's talk about legislation that will allow women of America to get jobs that have equal pay for equal work to the men. Let's talk about a bill that will give tax credits for families who have to struggle every month to pay for child care for their little kids. Let's talk about that. And finally, let's talk about parental leave, which virtually every other country in the world has, so that when families have children whom they love so much and want to take care of, they won't have to go back to work because their employer doesn't pay them for family leave. Let's talk about that because, Madam Speaker, that is what the women and families of America want us to talk about. I urge us to reject this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote. g. Segregation of Funds for Abortion Services (Sec. 156.280) Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280 specify accounting and other standards for issuers of QHPs through the Exchange in the individual market that cover abortion services for which public funding is prohibited (also referred to as non-excepted abortion services). The statute and regulations establish that unless otherwise prohibited by State law, a QHP issuer may elect to cover such services. If an issuer elects to cover such services under a QHP sold through the individual market Exchange, the issuer must take certain steps to ensure that no premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction funds are used to pay claims for abortion services for which public funding may not be used. We are providing guidance on an individual market Exchange issuer's responsibilities with respect to requirements related to QHP coverage of abortion services for which public funding is prohibited. HHS works with stakeholders, including States and issuers, to help them fully understand and follow the statutes and regulations governing the provision of health insurance coverage under a QHP through the Exchange. As is the case with many provisions in the Affordable Care Act, States and State insurance commissioners are the entities primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions in section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act related to individual market QHP coverage of nonexcepted abortion services. OPM may issue guidance related to these provisions for multi-State plan issuers. Under section 1303(b)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, as implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(i), individual market Exchange issuers must collect a separate payment from each enrollee, for an amount equal to the AV of the coverage for abortions for which public funding is prohibited. However, section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280 do not specify the method an issuer must use to comply with the separate payment requirement. This provision may be satisfied in a number of ways. Several such ways include, but are not limited to: sending the enrollee a single monthly invoice or bill that separately itemizes the premium amount for nonexcepted abortion services; sending a separate monthly bill for these services; or sending the enrollee a notice at or soon after the time of enrollment that the monthly invoice or bill will include a separate charge for such services and specify the charge. Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act permits, but does not require a QHP issuer to separately identify the premium for non-excepted abortion services on the monthly premium bill in order to comply with the separate payment requirement. A consumer may pay the premium for non- excepted abortion services and for all other services in a single transaction, with the issuer depositing the funds into the issuer's separate allocation accounts as required by section 1301(b)(2)(C) of the Affordable Care Act, as implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(ii) and Sec. 156.280(e)(3). Section 1303(b)(2)(D) of the Affordable Care Act, as implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(4), establishes requirements for individual market Exchange issuers with respect to how much they must charge each QHP enrollee for coverage of abortions for which public funding is prohibited. A QHP issuer must estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage of non-excepted abortion services. In making this estimate, a QHP issuer may not estimate the basic cost of coverage for non-excepted abortion services to be less than one dollar per enrollee, per month. This means that an issuer must charge each QHP enrollee a minimum premium of one dollar per month for coverage of non-excepted abortion services. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (Rep. Smith, R-New Jersey, and 20 cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7. The legislation would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restrict the District of Columbia's use of local funds, which undermines home rule. Longstanding Federal policy prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. This prohibition is maintained in the Affordable Care Act and reinforced through the President's Executive Order 13535. H.R. 7 would go well beyond these safeguards by interfering with consumers' private health care choices. The Administration strongly opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's reproductive freedoms and consumers' private insurance options. If the President were presented with H.R. 7 his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to solve a problem that does not exist. The Republicans keep claiming that this provision of the Affordable Care Act is affecting workers' hours, but despite these claims and despite a lot of anecdotal evidence that I have heard from the business community, the labor and employment experts have detected no such impact. In fact, our economy has created 10.8 million new jobs since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Almost 10 million of those jobs are full-time jobs. What this proposal would actually do is put more workers into the kind of jeopardy that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are trying to prevent. Only 7 percent of Americans work in jobs that place them close to the current 30-hour-a-week threshold. Far more Americans--about 44 percent of them--actually work 40 hours a week, so even slight changes to their work schedules are going to deny them access to the health insurance that they so desperately need. I have been sitting here. I am really touched by the concern that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for women and for young people, people who really are at the lower end of the employment spectrum and who the Republicans say are going to be harmed by this. Let me tell you, for the 4 percent of the large corporations that are subject to these provisions of the Affordable Care Act--people who have 50 employees or more--here is the way it is going to work for the young people and for the women. These people are going to be people working for large corporations, making just barely above minimum wage. If they work 40 hours a week, they get insurance. Under this proposal, all their employer has to do is cut 1 hour a week out of that--39 hours a week--and suddenly they lose their health insurance. And that is what is going to put those people at risk. Those women in clerical jobs, women with little kids, those young people in their twenties coming into the job market, trying to do the right thing and have health insurance, now they are going to have to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets, and for no reason. The consequences of this misguided proposal don't stop there. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30 would raise the deficit by $53 billion in the next decade while also keeping a million American workers from getting health insurance through their jobs. I actually agree with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). I think the intentions behind this bill are good intentions. But I think the effect of this bill is going to be to deny insurance for a whole lot of Americans who are at risk--women and young people, exactly the people we should be giving insurance to. Vote ``no.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you so much. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, when I was a 39-year-old freshman, John Dingell took a risk on me. He put me on the Energy and Commerce Committee as a freshman. Since that day, I have learned at his knee every single day. He has become a friend; he has become a mentor--and like so many of us on both sides of the aisle, our experience here in Congress would not be the same without him. A lot of us know about the long arm of John Dingell. Over the years, when Chairman Dingell would put his long arm around your shoulders, and he would say, ``Diana, I have a little chore for you,'' you knew that that little chore was anything but little. It was a part of something much, much bigger. Whether he was just moving a minor amendment to a bill or a large bill itself, and no matter what the issue was, it was always an honor to work together with John Dingell to get something done for the American people. As the now-ranking member on John Dingell's subcommittee, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, I feel a special responsibility to his legacy. John Dingell, over the years, held powerful people from all around the country, from every part of industry, accountable to the American public. And today, it is up to all of us, as members of his distinguished committee, to take up the great mantle of that legacy and to make the powerful tell the truth to the American public. I commit myself today, along with all of us, to carry on his legacy, to do just that, to make this committee a committee that John Dingell will be proud of. I am going to miss my dear friend, my wise mentor, and my trusted colleague. All of us will. We all recognize the great contributions he made to this institution and, most importantly, to this country. Few retirements are as well deserved, with such distinguished service as Mr. Dingell's. And so I want to say, John, job well done. Godspeed.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of one of Colorado's most respected citizens, Dr. Richard D. Krugman. On the occasion of his retirement, it is fitting that we look back at his successful career. His leadership in the medical community is demonstrated in part by the many roles he fills, including Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs for the University of Colorado Denver and Dean of the Colorado School of Medicine. He began his tenure as Dean in 1992, making him the longest-serving dean of any medical school in the country. In that role, he has made a significant impact on not only the Colorado School of Medicine but also the greater Colorado community. He merits both our recognition and gratitude for his steadfast efforts in creating a highly prestigious medical school that benefits the health of Colorado in so many ways. After graduating from Princeton University, Dr. Krugman earned his medical degree at New York University School of Medicine. He came to Colorado to do his internship and residency in pediatrics at the University of Colorado Denver School Of Medicine. As a board-certified pediatrician, Dr. Krugman joined the University of Colorado faculty in 1973. He has authored over 100 original papers, chapters, editorials and four books, and recently stepped down after 15 years as Editor-in- Chief of Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal. He has done incredible work raising awareness and tackling the problem of child abuse. He further assists the community by serving on the Boards of Trustees of Denver Health, Princeton University, the Hasbro Children's Foundation and the Kempe Children's Foundation. Dr. Krugman also served our country as a major in the U.S. Army Reserve. In addition to his service as dean and vice chancellor, Dr. Krugman left his mark on the University of Colorado in his many other roles. He was the Director of Admissions and Co-Director of the Child Health Associate Program. He served as the Director of the University's Area Health Education Center program, and Vice Chairman for Clinical Affairs in the Department of Pediatrics. He is also president of University Physicians, Inc., the School of Medicine faculty practice plan. Of Dr. Krugman's many accomplishments at the University of Colorado, one the most notable is the role he played in the construction of the new Anschutz Medical Campus. His unwavering determination to move the medical school from an old campus to a beautiful state of the art facility has dramatically benefitted the School of Medicine. U.S. News & World Report consistently rates the school among their top five primary care provider rankings. Please join me in commending Dr. Richard Krugman for more than 40 years of extraordinary service. His talents and perseverance are an example and inspiration for us all and helps to build a better future for everyone living in Colorado.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of one of Colorado's most respected and honorable residents, Mr. Henry Ernest Lowenstein, who passed away October 7 at age 89. This remarkable man merits both our recognition for decades of work in the theater and gratitude for his unwavering efforts to improve our community. He leaves behind an impressive body of theatrical work as well as his legacy of encouragement and mentorship not just in the arts, but for social justice as well. He made an enormous impact on scores of lives and is widely considered one of the most important people in the shaping of Denver. Henry Lowenstein was born in Berlin on the 4th of July in 1925, to parents Max and Maria Lowenstein, whose home became a magnet for that city's arts scene. In fact, Henry often told the story of listening to Kurt Weill compose the now classic Three Penny Opera in his parent's apartment. But Berlin in the 1930's was no place to raise a Jewish family. Fearing for the safety of their son following the harrowing Kristallnacht in 1938, Henry would become part of history himself as a child of the Kindertransport program, which saved the lives of thousands of children before the outbreak of World War II. Miraculously, the Lowenstein family was reunited after the war and was able to immigrate to America in 1947. Consistently fighting against discrimination in any form, Henry held a deep compassion for artists and outcasts. This passion, born from the horrors of Nazi Germany, would shape the artist he would become. After working for years as a foundry man and a gravedigger, Henry joined the U.S. Air Force, where he worked as an illustrator before attending Yale University. While at Yale he studied theatrical design and worked as a stagehand on Broadway. It was during that time he received a call from the Denver Post publisher, Mrs. Helen Bonfils, who was the wife of theater producer George Somnes. That 1956 request to run what would become the nationally recognized Bonfils Theatre changed not only Henry's life but the lives of hundreds of artists over the next five decades. Henry earned the nickname ``Father of Denver Theater.'' The Bonfils Theatre produced more than 400 plays, operas, ballet, children's theater, and touring productions until it closed in 1986 by which time it had been renamed the Lowenstein Theater. It was then that Mr. Lowenstein retired--for the first time. The next stage in Mr. Lowenstein's theatrical life was to found the Denver Civic Theater which he ran until his second retirement in 1995, although Henry never fully retired. He was a prolific scenic and costume designer and contributed designs into the early 2000's. Mr. Lowenstein's passion for theater was equaled by his commitment to human rights. Henry was a prolific mentor, particularly for women and people of color. His hiring practices, like his theatrical productions, consistently broke down racial and societal barriers. His work was so important to the theatrical community that the Colorado Theater Guild's annual theater awards were renamed ``The Henry's'' in his honor in 2008. In his later years, Mr. Lowenstein was also actively involved in the historical preservation of personal artifacts related to his family's experience in Nazi Germany. Mr. Lowenstein is survived by his wife, Deborah Goodman Lowenstein and sons David, Daniel and Joshua by his late wife, Doris Brewer, and his granddaughters Sarah and Nyssa. Please join me in commending Mr. Henry Lowenstein for his leadership in the search for justice, equality and beauty through the vehicle called theater; which dares to show us our humanity. Henry's generosity of spirit, kindness and compassion continues to enhance our lives and builds a better future for us all.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of one of Denver's most respected residents, former Colorado State Senator Regis Groff, who passed away on October 5 at age 79. This remarkable man merits both our recognition and gratitude for his unwavering efforts to stand for what's right. He leaves behind an impressive record of leadership in social justice and education, and he made an enormous impact on many lives. Regis Groff wasn't afraid to fight the tough battles when he knew he was standing up for others. He worked to strengthen education and to ensure a fair system for everyone. He was an educator, a state senator and a community servant. We in Colorado are fortunate to have had Mr. Groff laboring for equality in our community. The legacy that he leaves behind should inspire us all to continue his fight with a measure of dedication with which he worked. Born in a small town in Illinois, Regis Groff first came to Denver while serving in the United States Air Force, where he was stationed at Lowry Air Force Base for several months. He returned to Illinois and attended Western Illinois University earning a BA in 1962. When it came time to settle down and raise a family, he chose to make Denver home. He taught at Smiley and Lake Junior High Schools before starting an African-American history class at East High School. Later he earned a master's in Education from the University of Denver in 1972. A long-standing interest in politics led him to run for the Colorado State Senate. He was successful in his bid and served from 1974 to 1994. During those twenty years, he demonstrated time and again his willingness to fight for fairness and justice, including an effort to divest Colorado from South Africa's apartheid government. He cites the highlight of his time in the Senate as passing legislation that established a holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. in Colorado. His colleagues recognized his leadership and elected him the first African- American Minority Leader of the Colorado State Senate. His efforts were also rewarded with numerous awards from the community, including Legislator of the Year from the Associated Press. Roy Romer appointed Regis as the first Director of the new Youthful Offenders System. His dedication to community service then continued in his role as Executive Director of the Metro Black Church Initiative. He was selfless to the end. As a teacher, Mr. Groff had an impact on countless students. I hope some of them are as inspired by him as I am and will carry on his work to fight the good fight. His talents and perseverance are an example for us all. Please join me in commending Regis Groff. His leadership in the search for justice and equality enriches our lives and builds a better future for everyone living in Colorado.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments and life of Dennis Dougherty who passed away last February at the age of 70. As his friends and loved ones gather to celebrate his life, he deserves our recognition as a distinguished veteran, businessman, community leader, advocate and philanthropist. Dennis was dedicated to improving life for so many through both local and national politics as well as community organizations. He had a profound impact on countless lives, particularly on the young people of Colorado, and he was the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2005 Equality in Business Award from the Human Rights Campaign and the Matthew Shepard Foundation's Essential Peace Award. Born in 1943 in Omaha, Nebraska, Dennis was drafted to fight in Vietnam at the age of 21. As a proud veteran and patriot, he led the charge for progress in the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community, and his influence was a guiding force for public policy and opinion. He testified before Congress on the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, and he mentored several young men who served in the armed forces. Dennis relocated to Denver after his service in the military. He was the founder and CEO of the technology company Visual Electronics. His business success gave him the means to become a generous philanthropist, contributing to causes that ranged from disabled skiers to homeless youth. Moved by the story of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was tortured and killed near Laramie, Wyoming, Dennis became a major supporter and board member of the foundation started on Matthew's behalf. An unwavering and unapologetic voice in the community as an openly gay veteran, Dennis wanted to fight against the challenges he faced in his youth. Dennis had a heart of gold. Every year he cleaned out his closet to donate to an organization that helped homeless vets get back on their feet. He always felt that a good suit gave them a better shot at a new start. In each jacket he put a note that read ``someone loves you.'' I am one of those lucky enough to call Dennis a friend as well. I know and have worked with numerous others who were touched by Dennis' efforts or encouragement in some way, and many have gone on to do great things for our community. I have fond memories of the times he and I rode together in his pride and joy--his red convertible--in Denver parades. Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Dennis Dougherty. Every day he fought to expand opportunity, equality and freedom. His determination sustained him through many challenges--with tremendous results for our community. He leaves behind a legacy of charity and compassion and serves as a role model for all who believe as he did: that ``we are one tribe, y'all.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Congressman John Lewis, and Congressman Rush Holt, I rise to honor the life of one of Colorado's most respected and honorable residents, Dr. Vincent Harding, who passed away May 19 at age 82. This remarkable man merits both our recognition and gratitude for his unwavering efforts to improve our society. He leaves behind an impressive record of leadership in social justice and education, and he made an enormous impact on many lives. Vincent Harding lived a life of compassion and was committed to the ``beloved community'' that his friend and colleague, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., dreamed this country could become. We are fortunate to have been touched by such an intellectually gifted man. He was an historian, theologian, teacher, social justice activist, author, and much more. The legacy that Dr. Harding leaves behind should inspire us all to continue to build on the foundation of nonviolence, justice and equality. The passion and dedication with which he labored is evident in his life's work. Born in 1931 in Harlem, Vincent Harding attended City College of New York, earning a BA in history. For the following 15 years he demonstrated his dedication to education as he earned a master's degree in both journalism and history as well as a PhD in history. Dr. Harding, along with his first wife, the late Rosemarie Freeney, a writer and activist in her own right, moved to Atlanta in 1961 to become involved in the American civil rights movement. There, he fought for equality as an advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Harding drafted several of Dr. King's speeches and is best known for writing his ``Beyond Vietnam'' speech, a landmark 1967 anti-war sermon. Following Dr. King's death, Dr. Harding wrote a book, Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero, and he served as the first director at King's memorial center. As a professor, Dr. Harding had an impact on countless students. He taught at a number of universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, Spelman College and Temple University, and he spent nearly three decades teaching at Denver's Iliff School of Theology. He founded the Veteran's Hope Project in order to preserve the lessons we have learned from social justice leaders. Dr. Harding's dedication did not end with his retirement. He still worked to achieve his vision of utilizing social justice activism to connect spirit, creativity, and citizenship. He endeavored to heal America and make our country the beloved community Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had envisioned. His talent for teaching, gift of inspiring others, and capacity to relate to people of diverse racial, socio-economic and educational backgrounds means that his work will live on and continue to make a difference. Vincent Harding is an example of the life of commitment and courage we all can make. Dr. Harding is survived by his wife, Aljosie Aldrich Knight; his daughter, Dr. Rachel Harding; and son, Jonathan Harding. Please join me in commending Dr. Vincent Harding. His leadership in the search for justice, equity and truth continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, H.R. 10. I believe it is imperative that America provide high-quality public education so that our students can succeed and compete in the global economy. I am a strong supporter of public education, from early education programs such as Head Start and Pre-K to higher education and career and technical education. As we look to improve educational outcomes, we cannot overlook the promise of innovative teaching practices and charter schools. This new authorization of the Charter School Program makes important improvements to the existing charter school framework. In particular, I support provisions to aid in the dissemination of best practices from charter schools to other public schools, and the updated language that helps extend the reach of charter schools into communities that are currently underserved, including minorities and those with special needs. However, the underlying bill is not perfect. While one of the founding ideas behind charter schools is to reduce red tape and let educators take the reins, there have been worrying reports of gross mismanagement and embezzlement of public funds by some charter school staff, which requires some attention. I think the amendment offered by Representative Castor goes some way to addressing this issue, which would require the Department of Education to develop and publish regulations addressing conflicts of interest surrounding charter schools. In addition, I support the amendments offered by Representative Jackson Lee and Representative Bonamici respectively, which would increase the information available to parents and the public related to attendance of charter schools, and the efforts in disseminating and implementing best practices across the public school spectrum. There is more work to be done improving our education system, but we must be mindful not to create a two-tiered public school system. I hope H.R. 10 provides the intended improvements to charter schools, and the public education system as a whole.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Frank DeAngelis, Principal of Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado for his service as an educator, mentor, and community leader. For 35 years at Columbine High School as a teacher, coach, and administrator, Principal DeAngelis has guided generations of students from the Columbine community. Mr. DeAngelis taught social studies for 12 years and has served as Columbine's assistant principal, dean of students, and principal for the last 18 years. In 2013, Principal DeAngelis was named the Colorado High School Principal of the Year and has twice been recognized as the National Principal of the Year. In addition, Principal DeAngelis has again been named a finalist for the 2014 National Principal of the Year. Principal DeAngelis has been a cornerstone of the Columbine family in both its brightest and darkest days. When Principal DeAngelis heard gunshots ring out in the halls of Columbine on April 20, 1999, he ran towards danger and directed students to safety. In the aftermath of the horrific and tragic shootings, Principal DeAngelis provided much needed comfort to students, parents, and fellow teachers so they could begin to heal from the unspeakable pain. In the wake of an unprecedented tragedy, Principal DeAngelis promised the freshman class in 1999 he would remain with them at Columbine until they walked at graduation. He delivered on his promise to those students and many more. Principal DeAngelis put his experiences to use and traveled across the Nation to counsel other communities touched by tragedy. In the wake of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, Principal DeAngelis came to Blacksburg, Virginia to offer comfort. Most recently, Principal DeAngelis offered his guidance as keynote speaker at the Sandy Hook Symposium and the National Leadership Conference for Youth. Beyond his role as an administrator, Mr. DeAngelis contributed to the Columbine community's athletic programs for many years. Throughout his 13 year career as assistant coach on the football team and head coach for varsity baseball, Coach DeAngelis guided student athletes to success on the field and imparted valuable lessons beyond athletics. Last August, Principal DeAngelis announced his intention to retire at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. As he wrote to parents, students, and fellow teachers, Principal DeAngelis' ``heart will always be with Columbine,'' and his legacy at Columbine High School will live on for years to come. We are truly blessed to have such an extraordinary leader in our community and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, every year, sometimes more than once a year, since 2003 Congress has had to step in to prevent a cut in physician payments. With input from a wide variety of stakeholders, we have tried to work together for many, many years on a solution to the flawed system to the sustainable growth rate formula. Until this year, we were out of luck, and the price tag for fixing the formula was ever increasing. The underlying legislation that we consider today was 11 years in the making. I am very proud to cosponsor this bill because it is a compromise solution for the formula we agreed on. But sadly--sadly--the majority has prescribed a bitter pill to swallow for passage of this important bill for patients and doctors. Instead of coming to the negotiating table to discuss mutually acceptable ways to pay for this bill, the majority has decided to pay for it by delaying important provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Everybody knows that this provision is a nonstarter. It is a nonstarter in the other body and in my Caucus right here in the House. Because of this shortsighted tactic, the Republicans have almost guaranteed that we are going to need yet another short-term SGR patch before the current one expires on March 31. This is bad for the doctors of America. This is bad for the patients of America. Let's get real. Let's fix this problem for good. And you know, Mr. Gingrey just recognized that this bill is not going anywhere. So let's sit down. Let's do what we did with the SGR itself, and let's figure out how to pay for it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, this so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'' has got to be the most deceptively named bill of this Congress. Here are the facts: There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act does not change that. Let me say that again. There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act does not change that. The ACA contains a hard-fought compromise that guarantees that the tax credits made available through the exchanges are segregated out for plans that cover certain women's health benefits. This bill is an attempt to undo that compromise. It effectively bans the coverage of important women's health services in the new health insurance exchanges. It restricts the way that women can use their own private dollars to purchase private insurance. It says small businesses cannot get tax credits if they choose to use their private dollars to purchase private insurance that covers important women's benefits. It goes far, far beyond the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for most abortions in the annual appropriations bills. It also, for the first time, puts the Hyde amendment into law, and it says women in the District of Columbia will not have the same right to access health services as women in other States throughout this country. This bill would not only restrict comprehensive health care for women; it would also undermine a woman's right to make her own health care decisions under her insurance policy with her own money. Vote ``no.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Dr. Marion Downs and celebrate her pioneering work to expand hearing screening in newborns and early intervention for individuals with hearing problems. Dr. Downs' groundbreaking work has served as an inspiration for many generations of Coloradoans and the medical community. Dr. Downs is a Distinguished Professor Emerita at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. She began her esteemed career in Colorado, at University of Denver, where she was a professor of Audiology and Director of the Audiology Clinic from 1951 to 1959. It was there that Dr. Downs began implementing hearing aids for infants as young as six months old during a period of time when hearing aids were typically fitted at the age of three. Her practice of applying hearing aids at such a young age has shown tremendous results in hearing, speech and communications development. Dr. Downs then moved to the University of Colorado School of Medicine where she developed the first national infant hearing screening program in 1963. Since that time, she has devoted her professional career to identifying and managing infant hearing issues and developmental strategies. Throughout her 35 year career, Dr. Downs has received numerous awards such as the Outstanding Achievement award from the University of Minnesota, Gold Medal Recognition from the University of Colorado, Northern Colorado and the University of Arizona School of Health and Sciences. She has received honors from nearly every auditory and speech society and has co-authored textbooks such as Hearing in Children, which serves as a worldwide resource to educate students on childhood auditory disorders. At the age of 100, the lively Dr. Downs continues her work on important health issues related to auditory, speech and communication disorders. There is no doubt that Dr. Downs tireless efforts will continue to inspire future generations for many years to come.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, some mornings in Congress I wake up and I say, now here is a solution in search of a problem; and this morning is one of those days. We are hearing about how the Web site is not secure, how there can be security breaches. Ironically, we are hearing about security breaches with a private company, Target, and how terrible it is, and that is why we have to do a bill. But, in fact, we haven't seen any security breaches with healthcare.gov or the Web sites around the Affordable Care Act. And I want to stress that. I am the ranking Democrat on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, and we have had a number of hearings, and we have had classified briefings. Here is some information that is not classified information. There has been not one successful hack into www.healthcare.gov. Let me say that again. Nobody has successfully been able to breach www.healthcare.gov. Furthermore, as we have recently learned in a briefing, www.healthcare.gov, interestingly, has not been targeted any more than any other Federal Web site for hackers. So why are we doing this bill? I have got to associate myself with Ranking Member Pallone's comments, that the only reason we could be doing this bill is to try to have a chilling effect against people signing up to get health insurance through the Web sites. Let me say it again. There have been no successful breaches of www.healthcare.gov. Now, if we really wanted to do a bill that would strengthen privacy, I would be all for that. I think that consumer privacy is one of the most important things we can do. But really, when you look at the details of this bill, there is nothing here that furthers consumer notification or consumer privacy. First of all, there is no exemption or consideration of law enforcement. What if law enforcement found a potential breach and needed to investigate it? What if they needed more than 48 hours to make sure that, in fact, there was a breach before they notified people? Consider the harm that would occur if law enforcement did not have enough time and resources to fully investigate a security breach before it went public. The consequences of hasty and incorrect notification could just make the problem worse. Secondly, based on how the bill is drafted, if there is a data breach in a State that has chosen to run its own exchange, like my home State of Colorado, HHS seems to bear an unnecessary burden of reporting the breach in the State exchange having nothing to do with the Federal exchange. Might I remind my colleagues, State exchanges are entirely independent from www.healthcare.gov. HHS does not run them. HHS did not build their Web sites, and HHS did not develop their security protocols. So why should HHS have to get involved in the State-run exchanges?