Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, for nearly two decades, Congress has repeatedly reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act on a near unanimous and bipartisan basis. Since the act became law, incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent and the reporting rate of domestic violence has risen by 51 percent. The 2012 reauthorization is a chance for Congress to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of women across this Nation. That is why it's particularly disheartening to see such a vital piece of legislation fall victim to putting politics ahead of people. What are the facts? Tonight, an American woman will join the one in four women who have been the victims of severe physical domestic violence. To her, this reauthorization is more than just a bill; it's security. The bill is security for the one in six women who have been raped in their lifetime. It's security for the mothers, daughters, and sisters across this Nation, and its security for the selfless individuals who tirelessly work to bring aid. Now is not the time to take a step back, to abandon these victims. This Congress must expand its efforts and ensure that all victims are assisted, no matter what their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Too many in this body have chosen to fight against these protections. They want to fight efforts to extend LGBT individuals equal protection, even though they're less likely to receive protective orders, more likely to be turned away, and because of this are less likely to report their attack to the police. They deserve equal protection, and there's a bipartisan bill that does just that, but it's falling victim to election-year politics. In America, we have to combat the abuse of women in our own society-- no matter their country of origin--if we're going to continue to have the moral authority to advocate for the rights of people abroad. There is also a bipartisan bill that would continue to protect immigrant survivors by granting them special visas and by preventing retribution from their attackers, yet there are some in this body who would also deny these women protection. These days, bipartisan compromise is hard to come by, no matter how hard some of us try. We are rarely handed an opportunity where there is such universal agreement. VAWA has a proud history of bipartisan support. Let's continue that tradition, put politics aside, and pass a bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill that protects all victims.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Tadashi Yamamoto. At the age of 76, Mr. Yamamoto died from cancer on April 15, 2012. He left behind four sons, four daughters-in-law, and eight grandchildren. He left behind a legacy and enduring partnership with his friends in the United States. As Japan rose in world influence in the 1960s and '70s, Tadashi Yamamoto created one of his country's first nongovernmental organizations in the field of international affairs. In 1967, he organized the first Shimoda Conference, designed to bring together U.S. and Japanese leaders to discuss issues of mutual interest to both countries. Out of that conference, he founded and became president of the Japan Center for International Exchange (JCIE). Since 1970, JCIE has enabled more than 1,000 U.S. and Japanese political leaders to engage in meaningful dialogue and problem-solving, strengthening our relationship and paving the way for decades of productive endeavors. In February 2011, Mr. Yamamoto, recognizing the necessity for continued bilateral cooperation, decided to revive the concept of a frank discussion between political, business, and media leaders. He convened the New Shimoda Conference in Tokyo. I was pleased to lead the bipartisan, bicameral U.S. delegation to that historic event. Less than one month later the depths of the U.S.-Japan relationship were affirmed by the outpouring of assistance in the wake of the devastating earthquake in March 2011. Tadashi Yamamoto was a pioneer. In the decades before the Internet brought together people from diverse cultures to connect and exchange ideas, inspired individuals like Tadashi Yamamoto built bridges that made our world stronger. At a time when both countries were in the midst of change and protest, discovering post-war identities and ideals, Tadashi Yamamoto made our world safer. He led us to a brighter future. The United States and Japan has a distinct partnership today because of his vision, and those like him, who work tirelessly and optimistically toward peace and security for all of humanity. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me and the House delegation to the New Shimoda Conference, Congressman Tom Petri, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Congresswoman Susan Davis and Steve Davis, and Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, in remembering Tadashi Yamamoto. May his work and his legacy live on in continued cooperation between the United States and Japan and the open exchange between our leaders.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to announce the inaugural Women's Health Wednesday. Starting today and continuing for every Wednesday, Members of this distinguished body will take to the floor to talk about mammograms, about comprehensive family planning, and, yes, even about birth control. Mr. Speaker, I would like to kick off this first Women's Health Wednesday by reminding everybody this is 2012, not the dark ages. So it amazes me that the debate we've been having lately, both in the Halls of this Congress and out in the political scene, is about birth control. Birth control. Ninety-nine percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lives, including 98 percent of Catholic women; and 1.5 million women in this country rely on birth control for noncontraceptive purposes to treat a variety of medical conditions. The Institute of Medicine has determined, based upon science, that birth control is a fundamental part of women's preventive care. Yet here we are, debating about birth control. Mr. Speaker, over the next coming weeks, we will have many conversations, and I'm excited to talk about women's health.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the wonderful life and exceptional accomplishments of a remarkable man in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this distinguished citizen for his impressive record of civic leadership and invaluable service. It is to commend this eminent citizen that I rise to honor Senator Paul John Sandoval. Paul John Sandoval says that he is, ``just a tamale maker.'' And indeed, he is a wonderful tamale maker. I have had the opportunity to bring some of those fine tamales to this fair city. But he is much more than just a tamale maker. He has worn so many other hats in his distinguished life: salesman, entrepreneur, politician, elected official, family man, confidant and a person of the utmost integrity. Paul believes, ``a person should be true to his word and look after the people.'' Looking after people is something that Paul has been doing his entire life. Paul John Sandoval was born on June 29, 1944, to Jerry and Camilla Sandoval, the ninth of 11 children. Born in North Denver, he learned early a strong work ethic. His first enterprise was selling newspapers and his most notable customer was President Eisenhower. Paul, having tracked down the President to get his famous sale, was rewarded with a 5 dollar bill from the President himself. Never one to miss an additional opportunity, Paul asked the President to sign the bill, which he did. Then he promptly sold that five dollar bill for 10 dollars, doubling his money. Paul graduated from high school in 1962 and got a scholarship to Louisiana State University--New Orleans, where he studied Russian, hoping to go into the Foreign Service. He returned to Colorado a year later and earned his degree in international affairs in 1968. Although he never served in the Foreign Service, his life has been dedicated to looking after the people. Among other endeavors, Paul fought for fair housing as part of the federal War on Poverty and with the Chicano Education Project, which pushed for voter registration and bilingual education. Paul's first language growing up was Spanish. Throughout his whole life, Paul has made many friends and they have become part of his network. As one person put it, ``Paul was Facebook before Facebook existed.'' Paul was elected to the Colorado State Senate and the Denver School Board, making more friends and connections along the way. Paul's negotiation skills are legendary. Talk to anyone who has worked with him and you will be told stories of Paul's ability to build coalitions and get things done. He is the go-to person for personal and political advice. He has been a mentor to Senators, Governors, Congress people and our own current Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. But his advice is not just to famous or high- elected officials; it is warmly available to anyone who asks. He is also involved in quiet philanthropy. He has personally been responsible for numerous scholarships for students at local high schools as well as supporting many school events. And he is a family man; he is the one who is there for his 5 children and his brothers and sisters, never giving them less than he gives to his business and his community. Politics and education are a significant part of his make-up--and that tamale shop. When you talk to Paul, you talk about history, education and politics. In that tamale shop, where everyone gathers to eat, talk and get advice, you can count on getting two things: wonderful tamales and straight-forward advice from a man who will tell you exactly what he thinks, a man who cares about people, a man who is true to his word. The contributions of Senator Paul Sandoval are numerous, and on behalf of the citizens of the 1st Congressional District of Colorado, I wish to express our gratitude. His service and accomplishments command our respect and admiration. Please join me in paying tribute to Senator Paul Sandoval, a distinguished citizen.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to the so- called Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy and Resource Security Act, which is purported to help finance the transportation bill. I agree with my colleagues' concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline provision that forces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the project. The permitting process for Keystone XL has become a political spin war and I urge my colleagues to oppose my colleague from Nebraska's proposal. We should allow the original permitting process to be completed fairly and without interference. However, I come to the Floor today to talk about another huge problem with the oil shale provisions: CBO estimates they would have no significant net impact on the federal budget from 2012 2022. Oil shale has yet to be produced in commercial quantities despite 100 years of research and development. The oil shale provisions found in H.R. 3408 are being promoted by the Majority as a funding mechanism for the surface transportation reauthorization package despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office last week concluded that opening up 2 million acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for oil shale speculation would generate negligible revenue over the next decade. Speculators have swept through Colorado throughout our state's history to try and make a quick buck off oil shale. The last time around, in the early 1980s, Federal legislation much like H.R. 3408 ushered in a boom-bust cycle that devastated communities on the Western Slope when it became clear production was not profitable. 85 million dollars in annual payroll disappeared in Garfield and Mesa counties over two years. Oil shale is still not commercially viable--in fact, Shell Corporation estimates it could be 2020 before a company could be ready to develop a Federal oil shale lease. We need real solutions for funding our nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure. Using H.R. 3408 as a funding source for the surface transportation reauthorization is not a good faith effort to create the jobs Americans so desperately need. Mr. Chair, I hope every member of Congress realizes what an economic mistake H.R. 3408 is. I urge every member to oppose the PIONEERS Act and to support the amendment to strike all oil shale provisions.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I'm mad, too. I'm mad at the Senate. I'm mad this is a short-term extension. I'm mad that this allows this pipeline that I object to to be built, and I, too, am mad at the way it's paid for. But then, Mr. Speaker, I think about the six constituents that I met with a couple of weeks ago in Denver. All six of them are unemployed and have been for over 2 years. Every morning these six folks wake up with hope. They send out resumes. They make phone calls. They visit offices. They do everything they can think of to get a job. By the end of the day, they're dispirited. By the end of the week, on Sunday, now we want to remove all hope that they will have to subsist in any way. This is going to happen in 12 days. There's almost 36,000 people like this in my district. There's 2.2 million of them around the country. Or I think about the hundreds of thousands of families who do have jobs. Now, these folks, as of January 1, are all going to lose $1,000 in their paychecks in 12 days. These people have planned their Christmas budgets around that money. Now, either they'll have to charge it on their credit cards, racking up more debt, or maybe they just won't buy those toys to put under the tree because of Congress. Merry Christmas. Don't fool yourselves. I've been in Congress 15 years now. The Senate is not coming back. There won't be a conference committee. This motion effectively kills the bill. Let's stop arguing about process. Let's stop arguing about what we want to see. Let's stop demagoguing this issue. Let's start talking, for once, about the people that we represent and who will lose hope this holiday season because of us. Let's defeat this motion. Let's adopt the bipartisan Senate bill. Let's come back in January and work together in a bipartisan and a bicameral way to actually fix this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a longtime constituent of mine who recently passed away. Nancy Good was a social and political activist whose career, which was focused on bettering the lives of others, spanned several decades and three continents. Nancy was especially committed to furthering the cause of civil rights, and was an enthusiastic advocate of racially integrated neighborhoods, a cause she worked on both in Washington, DC, and Denver. She died August 24th at St. Joseph's Hospital in Denver after a brief illness at the age of 89. After World War II, she worked in Germany to repatriate displaced persons for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and edited the agency newsletter. It was during this time that she met her husband, Robert C. Good, and together they opened a settlement house under the sponsorship of the American Friends Service Committee in Frankfurt in 1947, work for which she was honored fifty years later by the German government. Nancy moved to Denver with her family in 1953 and worked for the Social Science Foundation at the University of Denver (D.U.). She worked with community groups to establish fair housing practices among Denver realtors. She was also very active with the ACLU during this time. A long career detour took the Goods to Washington, DC, where Nancy worked for the Washington Planning and Housing Agency. Nancy organized Democracy in Action, which took groups of DC junior high school students to meet with Senators, Supreme Court Justices and members of the Kennedy administration to learn firsthand about the workings of the federal government. The Goods lived in France in 1959, and in 1965, her husband was appointed the first U.S. Ambassador to Zambia, where Nancy remained active with the Girl Guides and with hunger relief projects. In 1971 the Goods moved back to Denver when Bob Good was appointed head of the Graduate School of International Studies at D.U. Nancy worked for Mayor Bill McNichols's Commission on Community Relations (working with John Simonet on police sensitivity training among other issues) and Commission on Aging (where she started the Wise Old Owls gift shop to sell crafts made by seniors). Her proudest accomplishment at this time was helping to start Denver's first Community Gardens project under the leadership of Min Yasui. In 1976 the Goods moved to Granville, Ohio, when Bob Good became President of Denison University. At Denison, Nancy oversaw a three year renovation of a derelict Victorian building in the center of the campus, which became the Good's residence and the center of social and intellectual life of the university. Bob and Nancy returned to Denver in 1984. Nancy was a proud longtime Democratic Party activist. She worked on election after election, bringing in cadres of volunteers to elect the Jerry Kopels, Pat Schroeders and Wellington Webbs of Denver. She was a member of the Downtown Democratic Forum, the Social Legislation Committee and the League of Women Voters, and spent her life fighting for positive social change in her community. It may be for a more light-hearted institution, however, that she will be remembered by generations of Denver children. ``Eggnog for Eggheads,'' a Christmas party, was given by Nancy for 40 consecutive years. The party eventually grew to become an all-day affair with a guest list of over 1,000 attendees including Mayors, Congresswomen and professors who mingled with Nancy's Park Hill neighbors. Kids built houses, castles and other architectural wonders from sugar cubes and frosting in the Goods' basement which were later donated to children in hospitals across the city. In honor of the popular gathering, Mayor Wellington Webb declared ``Eggnog for Eggheads Day'' in Denver on December 3rd 1996. Nancy is greatly missed by friends and family and will be remembered most for her enthusiastic nature, zest for life, and commitment to political and social change and for the great love she had for her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ron Lyle, a Colorado resident and professional boxer who passed away late last month. In Colorado's surprisingly rich boxing history, Lyle stands alongside names like Jack Dempsey and Sonny Liston not only for his success in the ring but for his commitment to giving back to his community after retirement. His story is one of redemption. Born into a family of 19 children in a downtrodden area of Northeast Denver, Lyle dropped out of school at age 19 and was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a local gang-rival. Lyle, who had always been an impressive athlete growing up, learned to box in prison, and was pardoned 7\1/2\ years later by Colorado Gov. John Love. Upon his release, Lyle pursued a career in boxing, winning the National Amateur Union heavyweight championship at age 28 before turning pro at the relatively old age of 29. He won his first 19 bouts, including an impressive 17 of them by KO. As Lyle's professional boxing career came of age, it did so during the golden-era for heavyweight fighting. The mid-1970's was the time of Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, and Joe Frazier--it was a time when families would gather around the radio or the network television as Howard Cosell narrated the poetic clash of power, resilience and grace that is a heavyweight title fight. During this time, Lyle fought Muhammad Ali, Earnie Shavers, and George Foreman, taking Ali to the 11th round before losing by TKO, knocking- out Shavers in the 6th, and knocking down Foreman twice before suffering a KO late in the 5th. While calling the Lyle-Foreman fight for ABC's ``Wide World of Sports,'' Cosell remarked ``it's not artistic, but it is slugging!'' Lyle retired from boxing in 1980, and then attempted a brief comeback in 1995, when he won four more fights. After retirement he dedicated himself to coaching boxing in his old neighborhood, hoping to give children the same opportunities that boxing had afforded him. On most any given afternoon he was down at the Salvation Army Red Shield Center in Denver's Five Points neighborhood, coaching at the boxing program that bore his name and teaching not just the right jab and left hook, but also the discipline and focus that allowed him to go toe-toe with the great heavyweights of his era. Mr. Speaker, Ron Lyle was an inspiration to our community--a role model whose impressive 43-7-1 record nonetheless does not do justice to what he meant to those around him. He will be sorely missed, but his legacy will continue to shape young boxers and help write the next chapter in Colorado's boxing history.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to honor the life of Noel Cunningham, a restaurateur and philanthropist I had the pleasure of knowing for almost 20 years. A resident of Denver, Noel was a true citizen of the world. Born in Ireland in 1949, he went to work at London's famed Savoy Hotel, achieving the rank of sous chef by age 23, before moving to California in the 1970's. In 1986 he moved to Denver and opened Strings, a bistro in Denver's Capitol Hill neighborhood that quickly became a community institution, hosting local celebrities, politicians, community and charity events and romantic date-nights. While his professional biography will be defined by his extraordinary culinary talents, Noel's legacy will forever be based on the impact his philanthropic efforts had in Denver and across the world. While in California he met Pat Miller, the noted restaurant critic known as the ``Gabby Gourmet,'' and the two developed a lifelong friendship. Together, they started ``Taste of the Nation,'' a nation- wide fundraiser that by 2010 had raised almost $80 million to fight hunger and poverty across the United States. With his wife Tammy, Noel founded The Cunningham Foundation, which included Quarters for Kids, to help educate children about local hunger and homelessness, and 4 Quarters for Kids, a project he named in reference to the four quarters it takes per day to provide an Ethiopian child with breakfast, lunch, a school uniform, and a teacher and books. Firm in his belief that philanthropy could strengthen a local community while enriching the lives of those across the globe, Noel targeted 4 Quarters primarily to local children, who held carwashes, concerts, pledge drives, and silent auctions to help create a better future for their Ethiopian peers. Noel was active with the local Volunteers of America, and served on the board of the national nonprofit Share Our Strength. On weekday afternoons, it was not uncommon to drive by Strings and see Noel serving meals to the homeless in between the persistent lunch and dinner rushes. He was committed to building a better community, both locally and globally, and was not afraid to enlist the help of others to achieve his goals; he worked with local hospitals to provide life- saving treatments for Ethiopian children, and local businesses to ship supplies and other necessities to Africa. He founded ``A Dinner of Unconditional Love''--a charity dinner to raise funds for Dr. Rick Hodes, an American Doctor living in Ethiopia whose mission is to help heal the poor--and had planned to expand the program across the country so that he could raise the $10 million Hodes needs to build his own hospital in Ethiopia. Mr. Speaker, from the streets of Denver to the farms of Ethiopia, Noel Cunningham spent each and every day making a difference in the lives of those around him. Never content to settle, he pursued perfection in his restaurant and in his charitable endeavors, never once falling short in all the years I have known him. His life stands as proof that any individual can have an extraordinary impact, and his tragic passing leaves a monumental crater in the global community that spans from Denver to Ethiopia and beyond.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Really? Really, Mr. Speaker? With 1 week left in the legislative session, we've spent an entire day debating about a bill that does not address an existing problem; and with the continuing resolution expiring 1 week from tomorrow, we're not working on an appropriations bill to keep our government operating? We're not here today voting on an extenders bill that would extend the payroll tax cut for middle Americans just as the economy begins to recover? Really? We're not voting on extending unemployment benefits to help struggling families stay afloat while they continue to look for work? Really, Mr. Speaker? And once again, we're not doing one thing today to put Americans back to work? Unfortunately, as ridiculous as today's effort has been, the consequences of the bill are no laughing matter. The truth is the EPA does not currently regulate farm dust. This bill would prevent a regulation that doesn't actually exist from overseeing something undefined. Also, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said unequivocally that she does not intend to regulate farm dust in the future. But to add insult to injury, the consequences of this proposed solution could be devastating. The bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee could be interpreted broadly to limit existing and future Clean Air Act public health protections for different pollutants. This final amendment that I offer today offers us the chance to protect our children and our grandchildren from asbestos, lead, cadmium, and other toxic air pollutants. I want to be clear: this is the final amendment to the bill; and even though I'd like to, it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, it would then be voted on at final passage, as amended. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to adopt this bill, we should make sure that we don't inadvertently roll back EPA rules relating to toxic dust containing cadmium, lead, and asbestos. This should be something all of us can agree on. Currently, the bill exempts particulate matter from regulation under the Clean Air Act if it is natural material, commonly produced in rural areas, and is not produced by combustion. Asbestos is a natural material. Activities involving asbestos are considered typical in rural areas, and asbestos emissions from mining and demolition do not involve combustion. Unfortunately, asbestos is also a known carcinogen. What would happen if we exempted asbestos from the Clean Air Act? We already know. To see the realities of asbestos, a natural material, we could simply ask the rural families of Libby, Montana. In 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency declared a public health emergency in Libby after decades of asbestos exposure from local mines. Even though the vermiculite asbestos mine closed in 1990, the EPA believes that current conditions continue to present significant ongoing threats to public health. There remain significantly higher rates of asbestos-related disease in Libby compared with the national average. Too bad the managers of the mine told their workers that the dust they inhaled daily was just ``nuisance dust'' and would have no permanent effects. H.R. 1633 would also exempt lead and cadmium particulate emissions from the Clean Air Act. Because lead and cadmium are natural materials, activities involving lead and cadmium, such as cement kilns and smelters, are typical in rural areas; and activities at cement kilns and smelters produce lead and cadmium without combustion. Sounds safe; right? Unfortunately, cadmium is a known human carcinogen. Exposure to cadmium may cause lung, kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems like learning deficits and lower IQs. Is that what this distinguished body really wants to do, actively take steps to cause behavioral problems, learning deficiencies and lower IQs in our Nation's rural children? Mr. Speaker, this entire session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice's Wonderland. While our Nation struggles with a devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or about getting Americans back to work. Instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation. Now, with this so-called Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, it seems that we're even having tea with the Cheshire Cat. To paraphrase our friend, the Cheshire Cat: We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. You must be mad or you wouldn't have come here. Sadly, for the American people, H.R. 1633 simply underscores the madness of this body right now. It's a mad solution to an imaginary problem. Vote ``no.''

Ms. DeGETTE. Yes, sir, most definitely I am.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, do we really want to bind Congress to more votes so we can play Monday morning quarterback for the executive branch every time it tries to finalize a rule? Don't we have enough gridlock around here? Look around. The REINS Act would grind our government to a halt and stymie the implementation of regulations to protect consumers and protect public health and well-being. Now, look, this bill would add a feedback loop to require Congress to approve major rules that it has already specifically directed an agency to promulgate. What we really need are smart people and streamlined regulations regardless of which party is in charge of Congress. In 2010 alone, Federal agencies finalized important rules related to energy efficiency, community disaster loans, weatherization assistance for low-income people, truth in lending, and better pay for teachers. All of those rules would be considered major rules under the REINS Act, and all of those rules would have required congressional approval. Good luck there with this Congress. Who would oppose final approval of these rules that protect everyday Americans? Well, based on the track record of the 112th Congress, some special interest group would find a way. In fact, the REINS Act would allow special interests a back-door entrance to have their way and weaken laws that protect the American people. Mr. Chairman, we all know standing here today this bill won't become law; and the majority knows it, too. Why? Because it's a bad idea. In these last days of the year, what we should be doing is finding a way to help the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking for a job by extending their unemployment insurance. We should be helping middle class Americans by helping extend their payroll tax cuts so that they can pay for the food and everything else they're putting on their table. That's what the focus of this Congress should be, not passing ill-conceived legislation that will only slow down the process even more.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, voter suppression efforts are well are underway in my home state of Colorado. In September, the Colorado Secretary of State actually sued the City and County of Denver because the Clerk and Recorder's office over sending election ballots to every registered voter in Denver, including inactive registered voting men and women of the military and citizens living overseas. Our Secretary of State took exception because the law states ballots shall be mailed to all active registered electors. Last month, a Denver judge ruled that Denver County could in fact send these ballots to all registered voters for the upcoming November election, but officers at the highest levels of our state government have indicated they will continue in their attempts to limit the participation of any legal voter in our community. Unfortunately as it stands already, just more than half of eligible voters in the United States show up to make themselves heard during Presidential election years. That percentage dips into the thirties in so called ``off years.'' The last thing we need in America is fewer people voting. With 14 million Americans looking for work, and millions more struggling as a result of a growing wage gap, the problems facing this country are profound and complex, and addressing them will require a broad range of voices. All of us bear the responsibility for encouraging voter turnout-- especially in traditionally disenfranchised areas. Voting is the most effective way to drown out the influence of corporate campaign donations and the unaccountable and unwieldy super political action committees, which can raise unlimited sums of money to pour into our elections. Voting is the most effective way to be heard on the issues impacting our nation. For too many Americans, the right to vote did not come easy and many of us recognize the perilous consequences of not guarding this right aggressively. In 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren expressed one of the basic truths of American history, that ``the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.'' Efforts to suppress the democratic right to vote in pursuit of electoral gain are both misguided and unconstitutional, and I will continue to fight at the federal level to ensure every American, regardless of race, income, or heritage will have the opportunity to participate in the ``fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, legitimate conversation and good-faith negotiations surrounding whether or not we can find a way to allow states to continue regulating coal ash seemed to bear fruit in the Energy and Commerce Committee for the first time in a while around here. So when we voted in July to send the Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act to the floor, I voted ``yes.'' I'm proud to say my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I have continued trying to find a workable solution on this issue. The concept behind this bill is good--in the face of uncertainty surrounding coal ash disposal and management, we could cut through the red tape and craft a bill that would require--for the first time--that all units receiving coal combustions residuals (CCRs) obtain a state- issued permit that meets enforceable minimum federal requirements. At the mark-up I, along with other minority members, requested a Committee hearing before floor consideration so that we could examine more fully the potential impacts of the most recent changes to the bill. My goal was to reach an agreement on specific bill language that would clearly require all units to obtain a permit, and if the EPA found this permit to be deficient, to allow the EPA to work with states to bring their permit programs up to a standard that ensured protection of human health and environment. In the intervening time, negotiations continued, as you see with the Manager's Amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Shimkus. I was encouraged by my conversations with friends on both sides of the aisle which reinforced that we share the same goals. In conversations with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the state body in Colorado responsible for managing CCRs, I learned that they supported H.R. 2273 because they believed it would allow them to continue with their strong program, and would raise standards in states with deficiencies. Yet the outstanding question, of whether any future EPA Administrator would have the authority to enforce the requirements we all seemed to agree should be in place, remains unanswered. We need more time to negotiate this bill, especially if anyone reasonably expects it to be passed in the Senate and signed into law by President Obama. I remained committed to the bipartisan process that brought this bill to this point, but cannot vote to approve of the bill's language for the following reasons. First, even with the changes in the Manager's Amendment, I cannot safely say that this bill would uphold a legal standard to protect human health and environment. This legal standard should be stated explicitly in the bill under the permit program specifications. Currently, under the Manager's Amendment, protection of public health and the environment is mentioned in reference to the revised criteria in the bill that originally applied to municipal solid waste. But a state permit program is not required to incorporate these revised criteria, and, furthermore, it is unclear whether the revised criteria would protect public health and the environment when applied to CCRs instead of municipal solid waste. Second, I believe this legislation should clearly describe when and how EPA can get involved if a state permit program does not uphold human health and environmental protections. As currently drafted, it is unclear whether the EPA could provide written notice and an opportunity to remedy deficiencies if a permit program does not meet specifications described under the revised criteria. In one subsection, the language implies the EPA could provide notice; yet in another section, the EPA is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of only the minimum requirements. Further, if a state chooses not to implement a permit program, the EPA can only design a program that enforces the minimum requirements, but not any of the revised criteria. Because this bill directly creates new regulation without expert guidance from the Administration, Congress must hold this language to an even stricter standard. I believe Colorado could operate a permit program under this proposed language that would protect human health and the environment, and I want to thank them for their good work and assistance on this issue. Unfortunately, I do not believe every state's permit program could be required to meet this basic requirement. I believe this is a bipartisan issue and that I can work through these differences with my friends across the aisle, but in this form I cannot support H.R. 2273, the Coal Combustion Residuals Reuse and Management Act.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, there are some days in this Congress I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland where logic is turned on its head and all of us have fallen down the rabbit hole. Today is certainly one of those days. Here we stand on the 282nd day of this Congress, and the House majority has not yet passed a jobs plan. Instead, we have spent all day long once again attacking women's health with a bill that will never become law. A similar bill already passed the House and died in the Senate, and the President has issued a veto threat on this bill even if it did somehow become law. With only 20 legislative days left this year, the leadership of this body has somehow decided that we should spend the day advancing legislation which would severely compromise women's health. Madam Speaker, despite the claims from my colleagues across the aisle, this bill does not simply say that there won't be any public funds for abortion. It goes far, far beyond. In fact, the Hyde amendment, which is the law of the land, says that there will be no Federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the woman, period. Let me say that again. There is no Federal funding of abortion anywhere in Federal law. Let me say that again. The Federal law, not the Federal employees health care plan, not Medicaid, not the military, not the Affordable Health Care Act, nowhere in the law is there Federal funding for abortion, period. In the Affordable Health Care Act, in section 1303, it specifically says there will be no Federal funding for abortion. Now, this bill, contrary to the claims of its proponents, goes far beyond current law, and here's how. It says women who purchase health care insurance in the exchanges cannot use their own money to buy private insurance plans that have a full range of reproductive coverage. Under current law, women can use their own money to buy insurance that covers that full range of reproductive health care. And, Madam Speaker, that is not changed by the Affordable Health Care Act. But under this law, what would happen would be women purchasing private insurance plans in the exchanges with their own private money would not be able to purchase a plan that had a full range of reproductive care. That would take away the rights of women to exercise their own constitutional rights to have a full range of health care. In addition, Madam Speaker, this bill also includes such broad refusal language it could override core patient protections contained in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, allowing hospitals to refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds, thus causing their death inside the hospital despite their treatable condition. Now listen, when I listen to this debate, it's really clear to me that the proponents of this bill, their main concern is not Federal funding of abortion. Their main concern is they want abortion to be illegal, and so here's my view. Having debated this now for 15 years in this body, here's my view. If the majority wants to pass a bill banning abortion, pass a bill banning abortion and we'll fight it out in the courts. Don't make claims that there is somehow Federal funding for abortion when in fact there is none to confuse the issues and to try to confuse the American public because I'm going to tell you something. The public will not be confused. They know what this bill does. They know they want jobs, and they know that's our agenda. Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I just wanted to point out that while the gentlelady on the other side is correct that the Hyde amendment is in the annual appropriations bills, if she would look at section 1303(b) of the Affordable Health Care Act, the provisions that say no Federal funding shall be used to pay for abortion are extended to that Act and to the exchanges. So in fact, the Democratic leader is correct. Under the Affordable Health Care Act there are no Federal funds used under that Act to pay for abortions, period, end of story. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Ms. DeGETTE. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring this bill to the floor today. In my home state of Colorado, outdoor activities such as skiing, snowboarding, mountain biking, and hiking are part of our everyday lives. These activities often occur in our fantastic ski areas--many of which are located on public lands. The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 clarifies the authority of the Forest Service to permit appropriate summer or year-round activities for ski areas. My bill will expand access to outdoor recreation, providing more opportunities for families to spend time outdoors. In the 2010/2011 ski season, there were over 60 million skier/snowboarder visits to American ski areas with nearly 21 million visits in the Rocky Mountain region. Providing summer recreation opportunities at already developed ski areas means winter guests will be more likely to return to their favorite spots at other times of the year. It will also provide substantial benefits to our local economies, and help create stable, year-round jobs in the thirteen states that are currently home to ski resorts on public land. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates active outdoor recreation, including activities at ski areas, contributes $730 billion to the U.S. economy annually. Furthermore, the act makes a commonsense change to the Ski Area Permit Act by expanding permitted activities to include snow sports such as snowboarding. Snowboarding now accounts for roughly 1/3 of all ski area visits, and the law should reflect the reality of current winter activities. I am proud to bring this bill to the floor today with broad bi- partisan support. We have worked closely with the Forest Service to develop a piece of legislation that is amenable to all affected parties, and I urge my colleagues to support this sensible piece of legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, for too long too many people in this body have proposed that we must make what amounts to a devil's bargain: choosing between environmental protections and jobs. Today, the ideology behind that false choice brings us to the brink of gutting one of our Nation's fundamental laws, the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act has safeguarded our economy and our families' health for decades. And despite heated rhetoric from the other side, it does not stand in the way of creating jobs. In 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, 3 million lost school days, and 13 million lost workdays. By 2020, the Clean Air Act's total benefit to the economy will reach $2 trillion, outweighing the costs by 30-1. But despite the actual numbers, today we find ourselves debating a full attack on clean air-- through the TRAIN Act--which would represent an unprecedented upheaval of our long-held pollution standards. Now, Mr. Chairman, we had a 3-hour hearing in my committee, the Oversight Subcommittee, today talking about the alleged job loss that the majority claims would happen. I heard no--repeat no--evidence that these rules would cause a job loss. In fact, the evidence put into the record at the hearing showed that these regulations will create jobs at the same time they are preserving our citizens' health. A key amendment to this act, which will be introduced later by Mr. Whitfield and which was accepted during the committee markup, is a dangerous measure that would indefinitely block two major Clean Air Act regulations. First, the Utility MACT rule, reducing mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, and also the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants. Both of these rules are being developed after extensive cost benefit analyses. Together, the two rules would prevent more than 50,000 premature deaths per year across the country. Now why would we delay implementation of the rules based solely on letters from constituents and anecdotal evidence? In fact, these two critical federal regulations correspond to successful pollution regulations in my home State of Colorado that are already bringing positive results for our State. Now everybody in this Chamber knows the natural beauty of Colorado is a treasure for everyone to enjoy. People move there because of the clean air and safe water. It is also a primary driver in our economy through natural resources development and tourism. But because of mercury emissions from power plants, cement kilns, refineries, and commercial boilers, about 20 percent of our pristine lakes and reservoirs contain mercury-tainted fish, including in our alpine areas. To combat that, Colorado has adopted some of the most stringent mercury rules in the country, with regulations on the books to cut mercury emissions by 80 percent by 2012 and 90 percent by 2018. These State regulations have been implemented successfully and to our collective economic benefit--a federal overlay to such regulations would bring the benefits that we have in States like Colorado to the entire Nation. Colorado also has been a leader in cutting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions to our economic and environmental benefit. While some States had a tough time designing haze-reduction plans in response to the Bush administration's now-defunct Clean Air Interstate Rule, Colorado didn't wait. We knew that we could clean up our power plants and also the power the economy. So in 2010, Colorado enacted the Clean Energy Clean Jobs Act. The law calls for utilities to reduce haze-causing emissions of sulfur dioxide by about 80 percent and nitrogen oxide by about 85 percent. As a result, Colorado's largest utility, Xcel Energy, is on track to shutter four coal-powered plants, three in Denver, and replace that generation with natural gas-powered units. It will also install emissions controls for another 951 megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation. And, Mr. Chairman, Xcel expects that these improvements will only increase rates by 2 percent annually over the next 10 years. Colorado's successful experience with these types of regulations stands as even further proof that effective and efficient regulations to protect our air and water bring ever growing benefits to our Nation. And blocking these regulations is a dangerous game where America's families will pay the price. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of these amendments will fundamentally rewrite our approaches to the Clean Air Act regulations that have been the gold standard of our environmental laws since 1990. I urge rejection of the amendments, and I urge rejection of this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank all of the wonderful pages who are in the back of the room. You have really seen history the last 6 weeks in this Congress, and we are so honored and proud to have all of you here with us. And this may not be my place, but we all want to welcome back our wonderful colleague Congresswoman Giffords here.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, here we are again, forced to stand up again to protecting women's health care against an extreme agenda. I disagree with the whole underlying bill, Mr. Chairman, but even so, even so, how one could tie restricting a woman's right to choose to graduate medical education is sort of beyond me. Let me explain why this is just an extreme and direct attack on women's health. What it would mean is that across the country residents would be barred from learning how to perform even a basic medical procedure required for women's health. This amendment would jeopardize both education and women's health care by obliterating funding for a necessary full range of medical training by health care professionals. And here's the thing. The Hyde amendment is the law of the land right now. I don't like the Hyde amendment. I would repeal the Hyde amendment. But frankly, the Hyde amendment has been in place for over 30 years, and it's not going away. And what it says is no Federal funds shall be used for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Now, there is nothing in the Hyde amendment about restricting medical doctors' training to legal medical procedures. There's nothing about graduate medical education in the Hyde amendment whatsoever. And if we pass this amendment, we will not allow basic medical training that would even allow doctors to provide the procedures that are allowed under the Hyde amendment--life, rape, or incest. And let me talk about why this is so incredibly dangerous for women's health. Ensuring that doctors and nurses are fully trained in abortion procedures is essential to ensuring that they can be providing lifesaving care when abortion is a medically necessary procedure to save the life of a pregnant woman. Now, most pregnancies, thank goodness, progress safely. But sometimes there's an emergency. And sometimes a medical abortion is necessary to protect a woman's health or life. For example, Mr. Chairman, in cases of preeclampsia, hemorrhage, and severe pulmonary hypertension, or bleeding placenta previa, which can be fatal if left untreated, an abortion is a life-saving procedure. In addition, in managing a miscarriage, sometimes an abortion procedure is essential to saving the woman's life. Now, under this amendment, virtually any type of health care facility could face the loss of funding if they needed to provide abortion care in an emergency situation. And moreover, Mr. Chairman, residents need to be trained in how to handle these very complicated conditions that could necessitate an abortion. I'm afraid to say these examples are tragically real. The case involving a woman experiencing severe hypertension that threatened her life at St. Joseph's Hospital made the news when a nun, Sister McBride, was excommunicated last year for allowing the woman's life to be saved through an abortion. The Foxx amendment would also greatly expand the reasons why health care entities should give in to refusing care. So, Mr. Chairman, here's the thing. Maybe we don't like abortions, and all of us wish abortions would be rare. But sadly, even in the case of a wanted child with a loving home and everything else, even in the case of an exception under the Hyde amendment, sometimes abortions are necessary. And if we say we are not going to train doctors how to provide a range of women's health care services, then we are basically allowing women to bleed to death in the emergency rooms of this country. And I don't think that's what this Congress is about. It is certainly not what the medical profession is about. I would urge just for reasons of mercy for this House to reject this amendment. It's mean-spirited and it's far, far beyond current law. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.