Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this extreme legislation, and I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in sitting and listening to this debate, it would be extremely easy to become completely confused. The proponents of this bill keep repeating the same mantra. They want to stop the Federal funding of abortion. They forget to mention that there is no Federal funding of abortion. What they want to do for the first time is to expand restrictions on funding into tax policy. Right now, under current law, we have the Hyde Amendment, which every year prevents Federal funds from being used for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or in saving the life of the mother. I don't like the Hyde Amendment. Lots of people don't like the Hyde Amendment, but it's the law. This bill, however, goes far beyond current law. Now my colleagues across the aisle want to expand these restrictions and make sure that individuals and businesses can't get complete women's health care in their health insurance, with their own money, without paying for a tax increase. Businesses, which right now get tax relief for having full health insurance, would not be able to get it. Let me say this again: At a time when everybody in this House and certainly when everybody on the other side of the aisle is saying we can't raise taxes, the leadership of this House is supporting raising taxes to advance a social policy. I don't think, Madam Speaker, that this was in the Republican Pledge to America. I don't know how many times the Republican leadership is going to make this Congress vote to strip American women of their access to health care with their own money. I, for one, would like to encourage them to spend their time getting our country back to work rather than on an extreme agenda that the American people didn't ask for, didn't want, and that is going nowhere in the U.S. Senate but, if it did, would be vetoed by the President of the United States. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times this Republican leadership is going to make the House take the same vote again and again to deny women the basic health care they need. But repeating these votes just exposes the extreme agenda that the American people didn't ask for and that they don't want. Continuing to debate defunding women's health care clinics like Planned Parenthood is not getting less offensive; it's getting more offensive every day. And the American public won't stand for this extreme agenda. Not one Federal dollar goes to fund abortions--not by Planned Parenthood, not by anybody. The last speaker was just plain wrong when he said this resolution would not reduce money for women's health. It would cut millions of dollars for women's health. Let me tell you about a young woman from my district in Denver, Colorado. She hasn't ever had health insurance, but she took responsibility for her own health care, and she had her first annual exam and Pap smear at Planned Parenthood when she was 18 years old. Now she's pregnant and she depends on Planned Parenthood for her prenatal care so she and her baby can be healthy. Planned Parenthood is the only health care provider that she's ever had. Vote ``no'' on this extreme resolution.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am frankly stunned to have to come to the House floor today to talk about a bill that defunds the largest investment we have ever made in our population's health: the prevention and public health trust fund. The trust fund specifically says what it is going to be used for: reducing tobacco use, expanding opportunities for recreation and exercise, bringing healthier foods like fruit and vegetables to communities in need; and helping kids to eat healthier meals at school. All of us who have been involved in health issues for many years know that the biggest public health epidemic that we have right now is obesity. If we don't do anything to reverse these trends, then for our children and our children's children, we are not going to have good outcomes. Seventy-five percent of all health care costs are spent on the treatment of chronic diseases, many of them preventable. Our Nation's youth are confronting unprecedented levels of obesity, placing them at ever-increasing risk for those very same chronic health conditions. I think it is pathetic that we have children in this country who only have access to playgrounds at McDonald's with their 8,000 playgrounds in this country. And so what this trust fund does is it supports research that examines evidence-based practices relating to prevention, including the translation of interventions from academic settings to real-world settings. This is not, as the opponents of this trust fund say, a slush fund or something that is simply willy-nilly spending. Instead what it is, it's evidence-based and it's looking at ways that we can prevent childhood obesity and nutrition, reduce tobacco use, and expand opportunities for recreation and exercise. This is something all of us can get behind. This is something we should all support. I am sorry that it has become caught up in this partisan web, because frankly we should all support this for our kids.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to close. This amendment gives Members of the House what should be a very simple choice: recognize the overwhelming science or vote to deny the overwhelming science. We in Congress can certainly change the laws of this country, but last I heard we cannot change the laws of nature. There is no serious disagreement on the science of climate change. In fact, the findings have been confirmed by all leading scientific academies around the world. The National Academy of Sciences last year issued a series of comprehensive reports that are unambiguous. It says, for example, ``Climate change is occurring. It is caused largely by human activities, and in many cases it is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.'' And even a team of scientists from UC Berkeley, who were told to try to disprove global climate change, just reported last week to a congressional committee that in fact global climate change is occurring. This is simple. This is clear. H.R. 910 represents an effort to deny and run away from science and reality. It ignores one of the chief drivers behind our need for a clean and modernized energy policy: massive and growing human consumption of carbon-based fuels. Last Congress, and again today, I chose to be on the side of those who acted to address a climate disaster and put into place the framework for an energy policy which this country so painfully goes without and so little can afford. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill and stand with science.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker I rise today to express the voices of the hundreds of people flooding my offices with calls and emails to plead for us to do the right thing and vote down this misguided legislation. H.R. 1076 would cripple the public radio system in this country that currently provides vital news and information to over 27 million Americans each week. I would first like to set the record straight--this bill will not save a single taxpayer dollar. Not one. And it will not reduce our federal deficit by one dime. Not one. My colleague from Colorado and his leadership have tried to portray this bill as a savings to taxpayers--and with all due respect, that is simply untrue. This bill is no more than a punitive measure reflecting an extreme agenda. It would devastate 900 public radio stations across the country unfairly targeting smaller stations in rural and regional areas where there are fewer news outlets and where broadband is insufficient. The bill threatens almost 9,000 jobs in the broadcasting community and, frankly is an unwarranted attack on the content of public radio. And the ultimate agenda of my Republican colleagues is laid bare when one considers that the Leadership rushed this bill through, ignoring promises to take legislation through regular order, and in short, breaking all their own professed rules to get this legislation to the Floor. Mr. Speaker, we've now been in session for 11 weeks, and the Republican leadership has not yet introduced a single bill to create jobs. They've instead focused on advancing an extreme agenda that does nothing to get Americans back to work. And today, rather than coming together to create jobs for the American people and address the fiscal situation squarely before us, we are spending our time debating and voting on a bill that is nothing more than social commentary in action to impugn one of our nation's most vital news sources. When we began our session, we all proudly read from the Constitution, and in that process were reminded of our core values as a nation and a government. One of those values is reflected in the First Amendment which supports the ability of Americans to access news and information through a free press. Sadly Mr. Speaker, this bill would ultimately limit vital news coverage millions of Americans so desperately need. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this damaging and unwarranted bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and exceptional accomplishments of Mr. Charlie Burrell, known internationally as ``the Jackie Robinson of classical music'' and the ``titan of the classical and jazz bass,'' on the occasion of the celebration of his 90th birthday. Charlie was born in Toledo, Ohio, in 1922, and raised in Detroit, Michigan. An acclaimed contrabass player, he was one of the first African-American musicians to break the color barrier of a major U.S. symphony. Honored by the Alphonse Robinson African-American Music Association for his invaluable contributions, he has received accolades from his colleagues for having opened the door for other African- American musicians by demonstrating that they did not have to be relegated to stereotypical musical styles. Charlie began the pursuit of a musical career at an early age at the encouragement of his mother. A chance hearing of a performance of the San Francisco Symphony led to his desire to become the first African- American musician to perform with the company--a dream he would realize twenty-eight years later. Although a dedicated student of classical music, Charlie and his friends embraced jazz music and practiced it whenever possible. At seventeen, Charlie was even asked to join the Lionel Hampton Big Band, affording him the opportunity to travel the country with some of the jazz greats of the time. Upon graduation from Cass Technical High School in Detroit, then one of the most prestigious music schools in the nation, Charlie saw his classmates move directly into professional symphonies, while he was unable to because of the color of his skin. But that never deterred his resolve to play. In 1941, he attended the New England Conservatory of Music and then joined the Navy where he was stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Base outside Chicago. There, he was selected to join the first-ever all- Black Navy band, a recruiting device the Navy developed to encourage African-American enlistment. Following his honorable discharge from the Navy, he attended Wayne State University with an eye towards teaching music in the public schools. At the time of his graduation, he once again faced the challenge of discrimination when was told by the administrator of music for the Detroit School System there would be no African-American music teachers in their schools. But Charlie continued to pursue his dreams. After he was turned down for auditions with four different companies, he moved to Denver, Colorado, where he worked at Fitzsimons Army Hospital and enrolled in the University of Denver to earn his teaching certificate. He later taught for the Denver Public Schools. A chance meeting with John VanBuskirk, the lead bass player with the Denver Symphony, led to an audition with the company. Charlie broke through the color barrier of the time to become the first African-American musician to join the Denver Symphony Orchestra. And in 1959, realizing his childhood dream, Charlie Burrell went on to become the first African-American musician to ever play in the San Francisco Symphony. During his five-and-a-half year stay in San Francisco, he also became the first African-American to play with the San Francisco Opera and the San Francisco Ballet orchestras, and the first African-American professor at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. Upon arriving back in Denver, he was hired again by the Denver Symphony Orchestra where he performed for more than thirty years. Whenever top jazz musicians performed in Denver, Charlie was often called on to play with them. During his lifetime Charlie has mentored and performed with many musicians. He has played with nearly all of the great names in the jazz world: jazz bass great Milt Hinton; jazz stride pianist Fats Waller; Lionel Hampton; jazz trumpeter Clark Terry; bassist Major Holley; and jazz trombonist Al Grey. One of his favorite vocalists was the late Billie Holliday. He is especially proud of his cousin, the renowned pianist George Duke, and his two-time Grammy award-winning niece, jazz vocalist Dianne Reeves, both of whom he taught and mentored. On a personal note, Charlie played bass in a jazz trio founded by my uncle Al Rose. The Al Rose Trio became the first racially integrated jazz group in Denver, and when my uncle passed, Charlie asked me if he could be my Honorary Uncle--which he is to this day. Retired from the Denver Symphony Orchestra since 1999, Charlie continues to be an active member of the community, on occasion playing his bass with his Cousin Purnell Steen's swing quartet. A comment he made during a PBS ``Special Jazz in Five Points'' broadcast best sums up his life, ``Music is my great love affair, and, in fact, it is my first, and always has been, my first.'' Charlie has been and continues to be an inspiration to musicians young and old all across our country, but we in Denver are incredibly blessed and proud to call him one of our own. I join all my constituents in wishing Charlie a very happy birthday and congratulating him for his lifetime of achievement.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to get going. We were sworn in over a month ago now, when the highest priority in this country, everybody agrees, is creating jobs. And, frankly, with unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, we have no time to waste dithering around arguing about what we should do. This resolution does not do one thing to create one job. So, once again, what are we doing? We're standing on the House floor debating for 9\1/2\ hours, wasting the American people's time, which is time we could be using to sit down on a bipartisan basis and bring jobs, investment, and growth to this country. What we're doing here is time- consuming, but it really means nothing in the end. It's a resolution. It's a resolution that directs certain standing committees to look at regulations and to decide if they think that it has some impact on jobs. It lists a number of matters for consideration. It gives no deadline by which the committees have to investigate these issues. It gives no standards for the various matters for consideration, including impede private sector job creation, et cetera. So you can bet we'll have long debates over each one of those criteria. But, then, what is most unbelievable about this resolution, it really doesn't say what we should do about it. Let's say all the committees meet month after month determining day after day, hearing after hearing that there's some impeding on business. Then what do they do? And that's what's so frustrating, because the American people don't want more review, inventory, or compilation of regulations. They want their families to have jobs. And so that's why we really need to sit down and talk about how will we create jobs. This resolution won't save one home from foreclosure, it won't help repair one crumbling bridge or potholed road, it won't extend a mile of broadband. It wouldn't ensure one school lunch for our children or provide a patient greater access to hospitals or doctors. It won't do any of that. What's worse, Mr. Speaker, is that, as we take this debate on today, we need to remember the committees are already bound by the rules of the House to provide proper oversight. We don't need 2 days to debate a resolution that tells the committees what they already have a constitutional duty to do. Frankly, I am concerned, too, because there is nothing this Congress has done today to give us any indication that the majority intends to spend any time creating jobs. We had 7 hours of debate on a bill to repeal health care, which everybody knows is not going anywhere in the other body and which doesn't create one job. This week, today--it's Thursday--we passed exactly one piece of legislation, and we are done voting for the day. While this resolution does nothing to create jobs and nothing, frankly, to make Congress expeditiously use its already existing regulatory oversight, at the same time it neglects the fact that laws and regulations can be important to protect our constituents' health. For example, when we had insufficient laws and regulations to deal with outbreaks of foodborne illness, we acted on a bipartisan basis to reduce 76 million foodborne illnesses, 300,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths a year in the United States. This type of regulation and oversight is important. It keeps Americans safe. It reduces the cost to our economy, and it ultimately helps save jobs. There are billions of dollars of lost productivity for workers, damage to our economy, and lost profits due to foodborne illnesses, which this Congress acted on a bipartisan basis to reduce. Mr. Speaker, I've also introduced legislation to foster the development of a clear and predictable regulatory pathway that enables better approval of safe and effective products and the support of regulatory research to promote the understanding of regenerative medicine. These types of regulatory initiatives can actually help create jobs in the future and are a critical part of our work in this body.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself 1 additional minute. Look, there is nobody on either side of this aisle who thinks we should have an unnecessary or overly burdensome regulation, but that's not what this is about. We have a long history of regulatory review, and we can do that without spending 9 hours debating a resolution like this. A few hours ago, we all stood here and read the Constitution aloud together. I am sure everybody remembers that the authority for committees in this Congress to review and inventory regulations is already provided. So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we do is bring this debate to an end, that we focus on the regulations that we can repeal, and that we really focus on what the American people want us to talk about, which is creating jobs for the American public. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that in this hearing with Professor Sunstein, the evidence was that the regulations that came out in the first 2 years of the Obama administration were less than the regulations that came out in the last 2 years of the Bush administration. With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any further requests for time.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 36 days since we were sworn in in the 112th Congress. Yet, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I know Mr. Shimkus and I will both agree is the most illustrious and powerful committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, the committee with broad-ranging jurisdiction, everything from energy policy to food safety to health care, even to national league sports, we have not passed one legislative bill in those 36 days. We haven't passed one bill to repeal an onerous regulation. We haven't passed one bill to create one new job. In fact, the first subcommittee markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee is tomorrow. This markup is of an extreme bill which will restrict a woman's right to choose. This is a divisive bill that has nothing to do with repealing one onerous regulation, and, in fact, it doesn't create one job, except maybe a job for lawyers who, if this actually became law, would have a field day litigating the legislation. Look, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that if there are burdensome regulations, they should be repealed. But let's not let this discussion devolve into a partisan debate under the guise of regulatory reform. So we know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like the new EPA greenhouse gas regulations. We know that they don't like the new health care bill. But just because those bills have been passed and are being implemented does not mean that the regulations, per se, cause a loss of jobs. So what I would suggest the American people would like us to see, what they told us in the election, what they've told us since the election, what all of my constituents told me when I was home last week is, when are you going to stop the partisan bickering? When are you going to create jobs? I believe that if my colleague from Illinois and I, and all of the rest of us got together, we could identify a number of regulations, regulations passed under Democratic and Republican administrations that are burdensome, that are outdated, and that we could repeal. But in the meantime, let's just call it what it is. Let's have the debate if we're going to have it. But let's not call it a debate about burdensome regulations. Let's create jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, over and over today I've heard supporters of this bill saying it is just the first step, then maybe they'll think about fixing the bill. Well, tell that to the millions of Americans who are now reaping the benefits of the legislation, who, if this actually became law, would lose what they have only just now gained: Citizens whose children suffer from diabetes or asthma and have finally been able to get coverage; citizens like the small business owners I met with last fall in Denver who, because of the health reform law's tax credits, are finally able to get health insurance for their employees; and citizens like the next generation of our country's leaders, like my young neighbor who has type 1 diabetes and is going to college but knows he will have insurance and he can stay on his parents' insurance. I keep hearing ``repeal and replace,'' but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's not what we're doing today. We're repealing these benefits that help millions of Americans and we are replacing them with nothing. If the proponents of this bill really intended to cover these things, why didn't they just put the 10 pages that my colleague talked about in the bill? The reason is because, if you want to give benefits like this to millions of Americans, to young people, to women with gender disparity, and to small businesses, you have to have comprehensive reform. We all know it. And that's why we need to resist this effort. We need to resist repealing this legislation. And we need to work together across the aisle to implement it in a way that helps every single American.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, it is under somber circumstances that this body gathers here today. On behalf of the people of Colorado and the constituents I represent in the First District, we send our prayers and compassion to all who are mourning the events of last weekend and trying to come to terms with the grief this incident has caused. As two of three women in the U.S. House of Representatives from the Rocky Mountain West, Gabby and I spoke often about the sometimes difficult task of staying close with family and loved ones, while shuttling back and forth across long distances between our homes and Washington. She has always been enormously dedicated to her family, and in the wake of this tragedy we see the love her family and community has shown her in return. While Gabby was the victim with whom I shared a personal connection, the tragedy of last weekend runs far deeper than just reflecting on the attack on our colleague. What happened to Gabby and 19 others on that sunny Tucson morning, happened to all of us--to all Americans. The victims came from all walks of life, each one representing their own unique story, yet each one also reflecting in many ways, people we all know and love. From the young girl with dreams of changing the world; to the dedicated staffer committed to serving his country and helping the people of hometown; to the man willing to give his own life to save the life of the woman he loves; to the federal judge devoted to the cause of justice and law; to the retired woman escaping cold, snowy winters for warmer climes; to the wife of a former Marine quietly living out her Golden Years with her husband--all these brave souls unite us all in the common dreams and blessed experiences we hold as Americans. Last Saturday, that unity was assaulted as a single, deranged gunman attempted to cut through the very bedrock of our democracy, by attacking an event at which a Member of Congress was performing her most fundamental responsibility--meeting with her constituents. The attack felt particularly heinous against a Member of this institution in which each of us have been asked by voters to serve largely because of its proximity to the people. And while these events have understandably renewed discussions about congressional security, we must ensure that these efforts do not leave us insulated from our constituents. We each have an obligation to protect ourselves, our constituents, and our staff. But our professional obligation mandates that we remain accessible and inviting, because it is through us that the every American from Tucson, Arizona, to Portland, Maine, has a voice in the corridors of Washington, D.C. Finally, it is important to remember that these were the actions of one individual clearly in need of mental health assistance. While it is too early to know what motivated him to violence, no one can deny that the level of political discourse in this country is not meeting the standard to which we should hold ourselves, nor meeting the standard our country's founders envisioned for our great nation. Far too often we have failed to find a way to, as Speaker Boehner put it last week, ``disagree without being disagreeable.'' It is my hope that the events of the past weekend serve as a wake-up call for everyone and remind us all that we need to reject extremism and violence, respect those who answer the call to public service, and strengthen our country with our every deed--just as those in Tucson have done since that fateful day. Gabby is a friend and treasured colleague, and my deepest condolences extend to her family, as well as the friends and family of the constituents and staff members wounded or killed in the unspeakable attacks of January 8, 2011. God bless them; God Bless this Body, and God Bless the United States of America.