Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I know that the ranking member already yielded back, so I thank Mr. Burgess for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to hurry down here to speak in favor of this bill because I have been working on it for many years with my colleague and friend, Jaime Herrera Beutler.

According to the CDC, maternal mortality rates rose by 26 percent in the U.S. between 2000 and 2014. These deaths are preventable, and they should not be happening in 2018. So to combat this alarming trend, 33 States have established maternal mortality review committees made up of healthcare professionals who review individual maternal deaths and then recommend policy decisions.

Our bill provides Federal support for these committees and supports efforts to standardize them. It has 190 cosponsors. It has received support from 90 national public health organizations.

It is really a great example of how the Energy and Commerce Committee works in a bipartisan way. So I thank everybody for being here and thank the chairman for his comity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of a remarkable Coloradan, Frederick Grover, M.D., who on September 20th will retire after nearly 50 years of exemplary professional, military and community service.

Dr. Grover has been a powerful force in our community; he has had an extraordinary career as a cardiothoracic surgeon at our preeminent medical institutions and is a recognized national leader in his field.

Dr. Grover is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine. He completed his residency training at Duke and the University of Colorado. After two years of service in the U.S. Navy in San Diego, he spent 19 years at University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center in the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery. He then became the head of the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and Chief of Surgical Services at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver.

His impact will be felt for decades through his active participation in the training and mentoring of more than 50 thoracic surgery residents, his clinical work in the areas of acquired adult cardiac surgery and lung and heart transplantation and his dedication to international medical missions.

Dr. Grover's legacy includes a new chair, with its first appointee serving this year, at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine: The Fred and Carol Grover Endowed Chair in Surgery.

Dr. Grover served as President of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SOTS) from 2006 to 2007 and has worked closely with my office and the entire Colorado congressional delegation over many years to impact federal health care legislation.

As a fellow congregant at Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church, I have seen Dr. Grover's commitment to his community and to improving people's health on a global scale. He has been on Montview's Global Mission Committee since 2003 and has led numerous medical missions to Nepal, improving health care facilities and performing life-saving surgeries.

He is also very much a family man, devoted to especially to his grandchildren--who range in age from grade school to college. He has made a point of bringing each of them, when very young, to Washington DC so they could experience our nation's capital. I have been proud to host them in Congress, even on the House floor itself.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor my friend Fred Grover for his dedication to patients, his compassion and his significant participation in the civic life of Colorado. It is an honor to celebrate his service.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, is far from perfect, as several of our colleagues have noted. The amendment I am offering today would reverse most of the bill's most egregious shortcomings and help ensure that liquefied natural gas exports benefiting from expedited approval truly are in the public interest, as the original bill purports to do.

This amendment would help keep methane waste to a minimum for the LNG exports permitted by the bill. It requires export applications to show that the natural gas was produced using available techniques and technologies to minimize methane emissions from leaks or venting.

In other words, this amendment would require companies developing liquefied natural gas for export to actually develop and export the natural gas rather than venting vast quantities into the atmosphere or lighting it on fire.

This requirement is easy to implement with readily available technologies. Many companies are already working to reduce their methane emissions.

Sara Ortwein, president of XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, just this week stated her company's continued support for Federal methane regulations, and she is far from alone.

In Colorado, we have had strong methane rules in place since 2014, and our oil and gas industry has continued to thrive, even as it is required to find and stop the leaks.

Stopping these leaks has real benefits. There is widespread scientific consensus that methane leaks into the atmosphere significantly contribute to climate change. The volatile organic compounds released with the methane increase ground-level pollution and harm public health. When natural gas is produced on public land, it leaks rob taxpayers of royalties on the wasted gas.

So we can and we must prevent such needless harmful emissions wherever possible, and this measure is one way to do it. It would increase the royalties collected for taxpayers; it would reduce climate-changing emissions; and it would protect public health.

Vote for it and you will vote for a better future for our constituents, for our children, and for generations to come.

Now, colleagues who are considering whether to support this amendment may be interested to learn that natural and regional polling consistently show strong bipartisan support for methane rules. Sixty to 80 percent or more of those polled expressed their approval.

Now, there may be many reasons for which some people will oppose this amendment, but I can't think of any that would stand up to scrutiny. I would look forward to discussing those reasons here. And if you oppose this amendment, let's talk about it.

Otherwise, we can reduce these emissions; we can pass this bill; and it would go a long way toward cleaning up our environment and saving money.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just quickly, these rules that the gentleman referred to, alleging that they solve the problem, I would just say the BLM Methane and Waste Prevention rule was eliminated by the Trump EPA under Scott Pruitt, and so that is not controlling the public lands emissions right now, which is what this amendment would do. And the EPA rule under the Clean Air Act is also under attack.

Really, if it is current law, why not just support it? Why not say, if we are going to be developing this LNG, let's stop these leaks? Because it helps our environment, it helps with our air and our climate change, and it also helps with profits. And, frankly, for the BLM lands and the other Federal lands, it will help the taxpayers recover money.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition of this amendment, which would block funding for the enforcement of the EPA methane rule. This rule will combat climate change, protect public health, and capture a resource that would otherwise go to waste.

The EPA Methane rule will curb methane emissions by estimated 510,000 short tons per year by 2025. This will represent a savings of $100 million in natural gas that would otherwise leak into the atmosphere. It is important to remember that it is not only methane leaking out of oil and gas facilities. This rule would prevent the release of 210,000 short tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are a threat to public health. When released, these compounds form ozone, which the EPA has linked to asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and numerous other health conditions. Ozone is particularly harmful to vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with preexisting conditions. My own district is part of a Clean Air Act non-attainment area where elevated ozone is a perennial hazard.

The health benefits of limiting methane and VOC leaks led Colorado to institute its own regulations for containing leaks and preventing the release of these compounds in 2014. Those rules, which served as the template for EPA's rule, balanced the need for responsible energy development with the need to protect public health and even had support from companies in the oil and gas industry. Colorado's oil and gas industry has continued to thrive even as they are required to find and stop leaks. Clearly a rule requiring companies find and fix leaks is a win-win, allowing for responsible energy development and protecting public health at the same time.

Furthermore, accidental methane release exacerbates climate change as methane is several times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Enforcing this rule would provide a climate change benefit equal to taking 8.5 million cars off the road. The need to combat climate change is only going to grow more pressing as the world faces increased harm from droughts, fires, and extreme weather. Colorado is already regularly facing low snowpack and devastating fire seasons.

Colorado's experience demonstrates both the need and the benefits of rules curbing methane leaks. Blocking enforcement of this rule will lead to wasted natural gas, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and worse public health. That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and allow EPA to enforce the methane rule.

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to make long- overdue reforms to the way that the FDA reviews over-the-counter medicines. These medicines play a critical role in treating Americans' ailments and in helping us stay healthy. In fact, almost 7 in 10 parents report giving their kids OTC medicine to help treat sudden medical symptoms. Similarly, 81 percent of adults use these drugs as a first response to treat a minor ailment.

Think about it. Despite the widespread use of over-the-counter medicines, the FDA is currently forced to use a cumbersome and laborious monograph pathway to approve them. This antiquated, 40-year- old OTC review system has not kept pace with new medical advances and the rapid expansion of this market, which now comprises over 300,000 drugs. As a result, the current monograph review system fails to respond to the OTC safety issues in a timely and effective way, which can pose serious healthcare risks for children and families.

Between 2004 and 2005, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 1,500 cases of children under the age of 2 visiting emergency rooms due to serious side effects or overdoses associated with over-the-counter cough and cold products.

Since the CDC made this startling finding, the FDA has been trying to revise the cough and cold monograph system to warn parents about the risks that these common drugs can pose to children, but the FDA can't do it because they have been hamstrung due to the burdensome process it must undergo to revise these monographs.

The Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act would streamline the FDA's review of over-the-counter drugs and provide it with new tools to protect children and warn parents about potentially dangerous OTC drugs.

I want to add my thanks to the bipartisan team that passed this bill, Representatives Latta, Burgess, Green, Guthrie, and Dingell for all working together with me on this important legislation, and, in addition, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Walden, the FDA, and the many stakeholders that have worked closely with us throughout the process.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a rare triple win for regulators, consumers, and industry. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Guthrie and Langevin for working with me on this very important bill, which addresses a national health care issue involving safety, efficiency and privacy affecting many of our constituents.

As most people who have been engaged in this matter know, the mental health portion of the 21st Century Cures Act--the overwhelmingly bipartisan biomedical reform bill that was signed into law in December 2016--included what is called electronic visit verification (EVV) provisions. These provisions require states to verify the provider, date, time and site of personal care and home health services.

They were meant to give patients the power to hold their providers accountable for delivering services when and where they are supposed to do so.

But given the delay by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in getting guidance for implementation of the provisions to the states, and the way the agency ignored Congressional intent to involve stakeholders in the regulatory process, House members had to step in to try and right what the Executive Branch has done poorly in the past year and a half.

The bill before you today grants a one-year delay in implementation of the EVV requirements. It also requires CMS to involve stakeholders both in the planning and throughout the implementation of the EVV requirements to ensure that the privacy and civil rights of consumers are protected.

This bill ensures that administrative and financial burdens on service providers are neither onerous nor duplicative and that states are able to design and implement their EVV programs in a thoughtful, deliberative manner. It also affords CMS the opportunity to hear from beneficiaries enrolled in self-directed plans about the challenges EVV could present for them.

This legislation will also help foster a comprehensive and transparent process that carefully balances the serious privacy concerns of consumers and caregivers, the administrative and financial concerns of providers and states, and EVV's goals of patient control and fraud prevention.

Mr. Speaker, if properly implemented EVV has potential to ensure that high-quality services are delivered when and where needed, while also reducing the potential for waste and fraud. This legislation will require CMS to follow a proper stakeholder engagement process, in order to ensure that the policy is implemented correctly. It will also allow each state greater opportunity to ensure that its EVV programs are best suited to individuals' specific needs.

I strongly urge all members to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 220 on the Gabbard of Hawaii Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5515, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted ``nay.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Aguilar

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act. While I support several provisions in the legislation, including prohibiting shackling of pregnant inmates, requiring that individuals be incarcerated closer to their families, and clarifying good time calculations, I cannot support other provisions of the legislation.

I strongly believe the House should be working to ensure that once convicted individuals have paid their debt to society they have the skills and support to reintegrate into society, but this bill puts in place too many barriers to that goal.

The bill excludes undocumented individuals, including those who remained in the United States longer than authorized from the recidivism reduction programming. Worse, the bill also excludes some lawful permanent residents from the program and could trigger their

removal. The bill also excludes those who have been convicted of drug crimes, including marijuana related convictions.

Given that immigrant and minority communities make up a disproportionate share of immigration and drug related offenders in the criminal justice system, these exclusions will by their very nature exclude those who most need the benefits of the bill.

Finally, any conversation about reducing recidivism must include sentencing reform that would keep low risk nonviolent offenders out of prison in the first place and address our draconian federal mandatory minimum laws.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we must do better if we are to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes dangerous new standards of care on doctors under threat of criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in jail. It is just another attempt by the majority to interfere with the medical judgment of doctors and other trained healthcare professionals, and it is, frankly, another example of why it is such a very, very bad idea for Congress to be legislating medical standards.

H.R. 4712 is also a solution in search of a problem. There is simply no evidence that current law is insufficient to protect infants.

It should go without saying that it has always been illegal to kill newborns. It is a complete distortion of the truth to say anything otherwise.

In 2002, as my colleagues have said, Congress reaffirmed that infants are entitled to appropriate medical care under a law that passed on a bipartisan basis. I voted for it. That law left medical judgment where it should be: in the hands of doctors, instead of politicians.

Today, the only example that we have heard from the other side of a horror that they are talking about was Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and it was a horror.

And guess what?

He was prosecuted under current law.

And guess what?

He is spending the rest of his life in prison, which is where he should be.

Sadly, the true intent of this bill is to intimidate and shame doctors out of providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare to patients.

The extreme and vague requirements of this bill, coupled with its stiff criminal and civil penalties, are only meant to have a chilling effect on providers, which will reduce access to safe and legal abortion.

Do you know what? I have been saying this every time we have one of these bills on the floor--the bills that are solutions in search of problems. Here is what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If they truly want to reduce abortion in this country, work with us on providing family planning and long-acting birth control to everybody.

Abortion is at the lowest rate in history in this country, and the reason is because States, like my State of Colorado, are providing birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We can do this on a bipartisan basis, but, instead, my colleagues choose not to, and I think that is a shame for every single woman and family in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the contributions of an extraordinary Denverite, Charles Burrell, who on November 28th was inducted into the Colorado Music Hall of Fame.

I've known Charlie my whole life. His distinguished career included playing in the Al Rose Trio founded by my uncle, Al Rose, together with Lee Arrelano. It was the first racially integrated jazz group in Colorado, and in the 1950s and '60s, they played at some of Denver's best-known destinations for music. When my uncle died unexpectedly at a relatively early age, Charlie volunteered to be my ``honorary uncle,'' a role he has embraced.

Born in Toledo, Ohio, in 1920 and raised in Detroit, Charles Burrell studied music at Cass-Technical High School, then one of the most prestigious music schools in the nation. Although a dedicated student of classical music, Charlie and his friends embraced jazz and practiced it whenever possible. At seventeen, he 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.

Charlie attended the New England Conservatory of Music and then joined the Navy, where he was selected to join the first-ever all-Black Navy band, which was used in recruiting to help encourage African- American enlistment. After an honorable discharge, he attended Wayne State University with an eye toward teaching music in the public schools, and eventually made his way to Denver to do just that in 1949.

A chance meeting with John VanBuskirk, the lead bass player with the Denver Symphony Orchestra, led to an audition, and Charlie became the first person of color in the nation to be hired by a major orchestra.

Charlie is equally comfortable in an orchestra or a jazz band. He was known to finish a performance at the DSO and then wrap up his evening playing jazz at the Rossonian Hotel in the Five Points neighborhood.

In 1959, Charlie became the first person of color to join the San Francisco Symphony, fulfilling a childhood dream. He played under conductor Pierre Monteux until 1965.

Always a generous man, Charlie has been an inspiration and mentor to many, including his niece, the two-time Grammy award-winning vocalist Dianne Reeves, and his cousin the renowned pianist George Duke.

At ninety-seven, Charlie has proved that age is just a number, frequently playing live bass on KUVO, Denver's preeminent jazz station.

Charles Burrell has been called the Jackie Robinson of classical music for his ability, class, and poise, helping forge change in American institutions that weren't always inclined to widen their circles.

It is my honor today to add to the accolades of this accomplished trailblazer.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the authors of the original bill 20 years ago, I rise to express deep disappointment that the House has not been able to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the extension of CHIP.

The September 30 deadline has long passed, and now 9 million children and families are waiting anxiously for us to figure this out. My home State of Colorado is likely to run out of CHIP funding in January, with termination notices going out to worried families in the next few weeks.

Yet here we are with a partisan bill that asks us to pay for low- income children's insurance on the backs of seniors and the most vulnerable.

The bill also cuts the Affordable Care Act, which could result in 668,000 people enrolled in ACA plans losing their health insurance. Nobody should have to lose coverage in order for others to keep it. This is a false choice, and it is out of step with what the American people have been calling on us to do. Only the 115th Congress could find a way to make the CHIP bill partisan.

Irrespective of what happens today in this vote, I urge my colleagues to get together across the aisle, across the Capitol, find a way to reauthorize this important bill in a way that doesn't cut benefits for other people. Let's

truly give kids these benefits that they need, and let's move on with our business.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and also Ms. Jayapal for allowing me to speak today.

Madam Speaker, I rise for my former district director Chris and his wife, Bridget. This is their story.

Bridget was pregnant with their very much-wanted second child. After the 20th week, they were stunned to learn that the brain stem of the fetus was not attached, and if the baby even survived, then the newborn would likely die within hours. Doctors told the family, if they wanted more children, it would be a good idea to end the pregnancy. After consulting with their minister, they decided to do so.

The happy ending is that a year or so later another child was born, and she is happy and healthy today.

As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I know that difficult circumstances always surround these highly personal decisions, and I don't think that the U.S. Congress is the body that should impose its opinion.

Just imagine the horrible choices families would have to make if H.R. 36 became law. Ninety-nine percent of abortions are conducted before the 20-week mark. Virtually all the rest are just like this situation.

Madam Speaker, I urge the body to reject this bill and to move on to important issues that are facing this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I associate myself with his remarks about everything we need to do by the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of this week; in particular, reauthorization of CHIP that has helped so many millions of kids get health insurance and get the care that they need.

I rise today, though, to talk about the MIECHV bill, which is up today, and to express my deep disappointment that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away from yet another opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis. We could extend this program on a bipartisan basis just the way we started it. It is really a success story.

The evidence-based models are proven to deliver results for kids and families in every single State. Investments in MIECHV are investments in the success of America's children and their futures. Peer-reviewed evidence proves that MIECHV leads to improvements in health outcomes for mothers and babies, school achievement, parenting practices, and overall early childhood development.

On top of all that, MIECHV is a great return on investment for Federal dollars. For example, for every Federal dollar in the Nurse- Family Partnership, we get $5.70 in return. Sadly, this bill that the House is considering today would set MIECHV back. The partisan proposal would make it more difficult for MIECHV models in all of our States to continue their success stories.

Under current law, MIECHV only has enough funding to reach 6 percent of eligible families. But instead of working together to help the program reach more children, this bill curtails the reach. It cuts the funding and, as my ranking member said, it imposes a harmful State- matching requirement that could force some of these home health visit programs to shut down altogether.

It is really a shame that when you are talking about healthy starts for kids, we can't work together on both sides of the aisle. I would hope we would defeat this legislation and come back and do what we have done before on this program, work together to have a robust piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama talks about the First Amendment rights of employers, but, clearly, this statute by the D.C. Government complies with all of the constitutional rights.

What I am concerned about here is discrimination against employees for making their own reproductive health decisions. Apparently, that doesn't matter to the people on the other side of the aisle: the right of people to take birth control, to have in vitro fertilization, or even to have an abortion.

The D.C. Council decided that was an important right, and that is why they passed this legislation. This is why we should preserve it today. There is absolutely no reason why we should take the rights of self- governance away from D.C., and there is absolutely no reason why we should take the rights of women and families to exercise their legal, constitutional healthcare decisions.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I missed rollcall vote No. 480 due to family commitments. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against: