Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I speak in support of providing additional funds to support the Environmental Protection Agency's National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman has been instrumental in providing further investigation and access to information for the public on a number of complicated Superfund sites across the nation. There are many communities across the United States impacted by years of hazardous waste disposal. The very laws and agencies involved in cleaning up these very dangerous sites often become mired in legal tangles and beaucratic inertia. The Office of the Ombudsman has been an ally of citizens to further insured that public health and the environment reman at the forefront in clean up decisions at Superfund sites. The Ombudsman also plays an important role regarding oversight of the EPA, ensuring that harmful decisions are corrected and that information surrounding Superfund sites is available for the public. In my district, the Office of the Ombudsman was useful in investigating the Shattuck Waste Disposal Site in Denver. The Ombudsman redirected EPA's focus by fostering greater public participation in EPA's decision to allow radioactive waste to remain in an urban neighborhood. To better protect public health and the environment, I believe it is appropriate that the Office of the Ombudsman receive adequate funds to sustain their mission of advocating for substantive public involvement in EPA decisions.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to offer this amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my esteemed colleague, who has worked for many years on affordable housing issues. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest mistakes we can make during a time of great prosperity is to turn our backs on those who have been left out of the economic mainstream. This country is experiencing an economic boom, the likes of which we have not seen in a generation. But it would be a grave mistake to forget that many people have not been included in this financial good fortune. It is times like this when it is more important than ever to help with issues like this. The last time the VA-HUD bill was being debated on the floor, I spoke about the affordable housing emergency we were facing. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a year later, and the predicament in this country has increased. One of the lifelines that low-income families count on is the section 8 voucher program, and the bill before us today does not allot one more dollar for new vouchers. This is not acceptable for the harsh reality we are facing today. During this debate, we will undoubtedly hear the argument, in fact, we just did, that we do not need to fund additional section 8 vouchers. We will hear that renewing expiring vouchers is enough. We might hear, and, in fact, we did, that some fiscal year 2000 vouchers might be recaptured; and we will hear that this is enough. The truth is, though, and I would ask my colleagues to consider this, there are over 12 million Americans, men, women and children, who are considered to have worst-case housing needs. The average waiting period for either a section 8 housing voucher or a space in a public housing unit is over 2 years. We have all the proof that we need that additional vouchers are desperately needed. While it is true that there are some cases where there are recaptured vouchers, that is not because there is not a need; it is because there are technical problems that are now going to be fixed, we hope, within rulemaking in HUD. But the truth is, these families who are waiting over 2 years need section 8 housing vouchers. Let me talk about my district, the First Congressional District of Colorado, where rents have soared in the past 10 years as a result of a red hot economy. Between 1995 and 1999, rents in the Denver area rose more than 20 percent, growth matched only by that in the San Francisco Bay area. There is great irony that the areas that are experiencing the most economic growth are also the ones where working families are priced right out of the housing market. Affordable housing is not a problem that exists in a vacuum, and it will negatively affect our economy if we do not ensure that all Americans have effective housing. We need more section 8 vouchers, not less. Now, we have heard how much we need the Space Station; and I always vote and, in fact, just voted a little while earlier this evening, to support the Space Station, unlike many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. However, if we have to make the choice between our citizens, our lower-income citizens living in housing and having section 8 vouchers and taking a little money away from the Space Station, the choice is clear to me. The international Space Station is $2.1 billion, and this offset is $344 million. We do not kill the Space Station with this amendment. Rather, what we say is, we will move it a little bit more slowly so that we can give the millions of low-income Americans that need them section 8 vouchers. I say to my colleagues, the majority that wrote this bill have put us in this situation of having to make this very real and very tough choice; and the reason is because they put nothing in the bill to fund the section 8 vouchers that are needed. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Nadler-DeGette amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would agree, I would assume, that none of the money in the bill is for new section 8 vouchers.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I honor and recognize the laudable efforts and accomplishments of Betty Wytias. It is both fitting and proper to recognize Ms. Wytias because of her exceptional record of service and civic leadership. Betty Wytias has touched the lives of many people and made a tremendous impact on our community. As a working professional, she gives freely of her time and energy to domestic violence prevention efforts, especially through the Colorado Bar Association and SafeHouse Denver. She is a former co-chair of the Denver Domestic Violence Task Force, a member of the Colorado Coalition for Elder Rights and Adult Protection, the International Women's Rights Action Watch and has been a member of the SafeHouse Denver Advocacy Committee since 1994. Betty Wytias is an Assistant Attorney General and has been instrumental in the formulation of the domestic violence prevention agenda for the Colorado Attorney General's Office. Her primary focus is child abuse and neglect cases and she sits on the Department of Human Services' statewide child fatality review team. Recently, Ms. Wytias was honored by SafeHouse Denver with the Carolyn Hamil-Henderson Memorial Award which is given to individuals who have provided inspiration and leadership in efforts to end domestic violence in our community. She knows the pain of family violence and is an outspoken, determined and compassionate advocate on issues related to domestic abuse. In her own words, ``The issue of family violence is so widespread and the abused are still so isolated. People don't understand that . . . I have a voice and intend to use it.'' Please join me in commending Betty Wytias for her courage, dedication and invaluable service to our community. It is the strong leadership she exhibits daily that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, tobacco is the number one cause of death in the United States right now. It is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each year, or 1 in every 5, and I am willing to bet that tobacco deaths have hit every Member of this House in some way. It is a well documented and scientific fact that smoking causes chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer of the lung, larynx, esophageus, mouth, bladder, cervix, pancreas and kidney, and the disease we just heard about from my colleague. This is a horrible, horrible disease. As you assess tonight, my colleagues, whether or not tobacco companies deserve the special treatment that the rider in this bill would occasion, I hope you will remember that for decades now tobacco companies have been targeting our children. For example, a 1975 memorandum to R. B. Seligman, Philip Morris vice president for research and development states, ``Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been attributable in large part to our high market penetration among younger smokers 15- to 19-year-olds.'' And Marlboro is not the only one. In 1978, Curtis Judge, the President of Lorillard Tobacco Company, received a memo saying, ``The success of Newport has been fantastic during the past few years. The base of our business is the high school student. It is the in brand to smoke if you want to be one of the group.'' Recent research has indicated that tobacco companies are targeting teens today through advertisements in all of the mediums they care about, including magazines and billboards. Now, we do not know how this lawsuit will turn out. We do not know if it will be successful. But why on Earth, when you have an industry with this kind of track record, should you give them the kind of special exemption that this bill would give them? It makes no sense, and it is dead wrong. According to recent estimates, the Federal Government expenditures for the treatment of tobacco-related illness totals $22.2 billion in Medicare, the Veterans Administration, the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits and the Indian Health Services. In fact, the courts recently held that the Indians must go through the Federal Government to seek remedies versus the industry because the main health funding is a Federal program. So not only is it wrong to give the tobacco companies a pass, it is also fiscally irresponsible. We are spending billions of dollars to treat tobacco-related illnesses, and, frankly, if there is evidence of racketeering, if there is evidence of the wrongdoing that is alleged in this lawsuit, why on Earth should the United States Congress give the tobacco industry a pass? It makes no sense, it is wrong, and we cannot do it. I would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is the wrong thing to do, both fiscally and from a public health standpoint, and I would urge the adoption of this very fine amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind that the stunning landscape of the San Rafael Swell with its multicolored sandstone exposed in deep canyons should be protected. The question before us today is, does this legislation offer that protection? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Therefore, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3605 because it fails to protect and preserve the unique beauty that this wild area of Utah deserves. While I adamantly support the strongest protection possible for the San Rafael Swell in Utah, and have cosponsored the ``America's Redrock Wilderness Act,'' H.R. 3605 provides inadequate protection for these lands. This legislation creates the ``San Rafael Western Legacy District,'' a vague moniker that falls short of the real protection this land merits. How can this land be protected by legislation that does not address the rampant off-road vehicle use, which poses the gravest risk to this land? How can this land be preserved for generations when this legislation fails to designate a single acre as a wilderness study area, much less declare any land as wilderness? How can this ecosystem be protected by legislation that does not address the issue of water rights? Terry Tempest Williams wrote that these lands ``swing the doors of our imagination wide open.'' It is passed time to protect these treasured lands and ensure they remain wild and free before they slip away from us forever.

Mr. DeGETTE

Mr. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the We the People. . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program, and applaud the outstanding East High School students that came to Washington, DC, after winning the state competition and went on to win an Honorable Mention as one of the top ten finalists in the national finals. These young scholars have worked diligently to make it to the finals and their hard work has gained them a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are: Adrienne Cassart, Emma Douglas, Kelly Durcan, Jill Friedman, Aaron Goldhammer, Jessica Harvey, Elizabeth Hultin, Matt Johnson, Casey Madison, Merrin McCabe, Emily Olson, Joe Pallett, Elisha Roberts, Evan Samples, Erica Simms and Grant Wylie. Additionally, I would like to commend their teacher Edna Sutton who deserves much of the credit for the success of this great team and recognize the District Coordinator, Loyal Darr, and the State Coordinator, Barbara Miller. The We the People. . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by the students acting as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee'' made up of a panel of judges acting as Members. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I know first hand how well this program works because I was a volunteer coach for years at a high school back in my district in Denver, whose students have done extraordinarily well in the We the People. . . . competitions over the last decade. East High School has been among the top ten finalists most years since they have competed, and they won the competition in 1992. Once again, I commend the East team for winning the state competition and winning Honorable Mention as one of the top 10 finalists in the national finals.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4475, the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies. This important legislation contains federal transit capital funds that are vital to the success of the Denver Regional Transportation District's new light rail transit corridors projects, the nearly completed South West Corridor, and the new South East Corridor. I want to thank Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Sabo and the rest of the Committee for including $20,200,000 to help complete the SW Corridor project, which opens for revenue service this July. In addition, I appreciate the Committee's support for our new SE Corridor extension, which received an earmark for $3,000,000. These funds are derived from the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants program which finances transit new starts projects. Transportation is a key issue in the First Congressional District of the State of Colorado. I am proud that Denver's light rail and multi- modal corridors are a growing local success story and that the efforts of the Colorado delegation to win support for these projects have been fruitful. The SW Corridor project will be completed in the coming months with this year's appropriation of the final federal installment of its full funding grant agreement. The new SE Corridor multi-modal project, combining highway and light rail elements, is anticipated to complete all the steps necessary to receive a full funding grant agreement as early as this year. I have supported a robust FY 2001 appropriation of $63,000,000 for the SE Corridor project. As I mentioned, the bill before us contains just $3,000,000 for the new corridor, which I hope will grow as the bill progresses through the many steps of the congressional appropriations process. This request, while large, is amply justified because Denver residents have voted overwhelmingly--66 percent supported the initiative--on last year's ballot issue to approve local funding for this multi-modal approach to improving Denver's transportation system. Their support has been strong because our needs are strong. The rapidly growing transit needs in the Denver region are clear. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides public transit service to over 2 million residents of the six counties and 41 municipalities in its 2,400 square mile district--one of the nation's largest transit districts. RTD's fleet of 933 buses and 17 light rail vehicles carried over 74 million passengers in 1999, its thirteenth consecutive year of increased ridership. The RTD has continued its progress in developing rapid transit by extending construction of light rail from the successful Central Corridor light rail line to the SW Corridor. The 8.7 mile SW Corridor light rail extension will serve three major activity centers: the Denver central business district, a regional retail and commercial center in Englewood, and the Littleton Central Business District. Not only has Denver RTD demonstrated a strong commitment to keep the SW Corridor project on schedule by advancing its own local funds, but it also has a proven record of building light rail projects. Through its efficient handling of the construction of its existing Central Corridor line, and now the SW Corridor line, RTD has demonstrated its ability to successfully manage light rail projects. Building on this experience, RTD together with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are now poised to implement the SE multi-modal project. This project will include 19 miles of light rail line which will run alongside Interstate 25 (for 15 miles) from Broadway in Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and within the median of 1-255 (for miles) from I-25 to Parker Road. The SE Corridor connects the two largest employment centers in the region--the Denver Central Business District and the SE business district, together these two employment centers account for 18 percent of the metro region's employment. The SE Corridor project is a joint effort of four agencies (for which interagency agreements are already in place): The Federal Transit Administration; the Federal Highway Administration; the CDOT; and the RTD. These agencies working together in a ``One Dot'' approach will insure the efficient delivery of this project. In conclusion, completion of our SW Corridor light rail project is vital to our region's ability to meet the challenges of rapid growth responsibly. Moving ahead quickly with the multi-modal SE Corridor will demonstrate the federal government's support for communities that are willing to invest in cost-effective transportation solutions to traffic congestion. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I thank the Committee for the critical funding it contains for transportation needs in my district.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, but with deep disappointment that this issue must be subject to debate. Today, we must debate whether or not the women serving this country overseas will fall into the same category as female prisoners as a class of women who cannot exercise the same right as free women in this country to access a safe and legal abortion. This amendment simply restores access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents abroad. We are not even debating funding this medical service with taxpayer dollars, and still this is subject to debate. As much as the other side would like to make this debate about the practice of abortion, this debate is about equal treatment for women who put their lives on the line for this country all across the globe. I support the Sanchez amendment because current law jeopardizes the health of the 100,000 U.S. servicewomen and military dependents who live on military bases overseas. It denies a woman her constitutional right to choose and punishes her for her military service. This amendment ensures that our servicewomen are not forced into dangerous back alley abortions in unsafe, unsanitary, inhospitable locales. Abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, and it should be legal for an American woman serving her country overseas.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291, the Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act. The expansion of the Internet has been a source of incredible growth in our economy. I do not think anyone wishes to slow down this incredible growth engine by allowing multiple or discriminatory taxes. This is one of the reasons there is so much support for H.R. 1291. By the same token, Internet telephone service has the potential to grow exponentially, but only if it is not subjected to per-minute charges. The way Internet telephony is taxed will dictate the extent to which millions of Americans will have access to this new and innovative service. It is important that consumers have a range of choices when it comes to telephone services, which is why it is incumbent upon Congress to preserve competition in this industry. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should carefully consider the issue of the appropriate way to regulate new Internet applications in a way that promotes growth and provides competition to consumers. Additionally, the FCC should also study the issue of whether or not an appropriate charge needs to be imposed on Internet providers in the future for the sake of preserving universal service. The bottom line should be to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable telecommunications services.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, we often hear from constituents frustrated by the complicated and sometimes confusing process of reporting pollutants to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some argue the solution to this problem is the widespread reduction or elimination of reporting requirements. This is not the proper response. There are very important public health, safety, and environmental reasons for these reporting requirements. These requirements have been carefully scrutinized by elected officials for decades and found to present significant benefits to the public. They allow us to better reduce and remediate pollution and identify point and non-point sources of pollution that threaten our communities, water, air and land. As result of collecting this information, we have been able to more accurately identify problems, target resources and programs, and improve public health and safety. Clearly, pollution reporting has not driven businesses to the brink of economic disaster or brought our economy to a screeching halt. But, can we find better and more efficient ways to collect this valuable information? The answer is yes. We can collect this critical information in a manner that is more efficient and manageable for the private sector, the EPA, and State, local and tribal governments. It is time for pollution reporting to move into the twenty-first century and utilize the cost-effective technology of the information age. EPA must work with those that file pollution reports to develop a new reporting protocol. Today, I introduced legislation, the Streamlined Pollution Reporting and Technical Assistance Act, that directs the EPA to do just this. The Streamlined Pollution Reporting and Technical Assistance Act does the following: (1) Directs the Administrator of the EPA to establish a simplified electronic reporting process for pollution; (2) directs the Administrator to establish or designate a central office that coordinates and collects reports; (3) directs the Administrator to work with State, tribal, and local governments, as well as industry, scientists, information technology experts, and environmental groups to develop the streamlined pollution reporting protocol; (4) directs the new office to conduct an active technical assistance program to assist all potential users of the reporting system; (5) directs the General Accounting Office and the Administrator to report on barriers to the implementation of this legislation; and (6) directs the Administrator, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Secretary of Energy to form an advisory committee comprised of appropriate representatives from industry, academia, government, and other organizations deemed appropriate. The committee shall advise Congress on the status of industrial or product life cycle analysis for reducing pollution and increasing resource use efficiency, and eliminating barriers to the increased utilization of life cycle analysis by the public and private sectors. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that is good for the economy and good for the environment. This is an issue everyone can support and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), legislation which I cosponsored. This is landmark legislation indeed and an exceptional example of bipartisan cooperation creating comprehensive legislation to conserve our nation's natural treasures and preserve the environment as a legacy for generations to come. I believe that we do not inherit the earth from our parents, but instead we are stewards of the earth who must preserve it for our children and our children's children. CARA enables the federal government, in partnership with states and local governments, to fund a wide variety of conservation activities. This legislation fully funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increases funding for state fish and wildlife programs, increases incentives for voluntary actions to conserve endangered species by private landowners, and increases support for coastal conservation programs and conservation easements. As we experience record growth in my homes state of Colorado, the ability to enjoy open space has become more important, and the need to preserve the unique natural beauty that brought many to the state has become more apparent. The public looks to the government for help conserving land, water and open space. This legislation strikes an important balance to fully fund these worthwhile efforts. As a result, it has garnered the support of all 50 governors and over 4500 organizations, businesses, elected officials and government entities. It is high time for the Congress to make a strong commitment to the environment by investing in wildlife conservation, open space, farmland and historic preservation, recreation, parks, and endangered species recovery. I am proud to lend my strong support to this legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act because I believe that it is important to move this legislation forward so that Congress stays focused on the vital issue of taxation of the Internet. I supported an amendment that would have extended the moratorium for an additional two years. I believe this would have provided the needed amount of time for use to find a balance between protecting the Internet from any new discriminatory taxes and preserving the ability of states and localities to collect sales and use taxes. Unfortunately, the two-year extension amendment failed and I therefore voted for final passage as a means of moving this legislation forward with the expectation that a compromise will be worked out between the House and the Senate to adequately address this issue. It is important to protect the integrity of the Internet from multiple and potential discriminatory taxes. It is equally important that this be done without inhibiting the ability of states to collect the taxes they have always collected. The Internet Nondiscrimination Act does nothing to inhibit the collection of these taxes, but it also does nothing to resolve the issue of how states can continue to collect state use and use taxes as more and more people shop via the Internet. I believe we can foster the booming technology and telecommunications industries across the country without harming our states. Congress needs to work closely with state government and the technology industry to develop a good policy that promotes growth in the technology industry without hurting local businesses across this country. We need to pursue a policy that creates a level playing field and ensures fair taxation across the board. I believe this can be done and I will work towards this end until we can come to a satisfactory resolution of this issue. I believe the passage of this legislation is an important step in an ongoing process that will eventually produce a bill that reflects the concerns of all interested parties.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), someone who has worked on these issues for many, many years.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), our distinguished colleague on the committee.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a member of the committee.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a distinguished member of the committee. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of our subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their tireless efforts on what was not an easy process here. This is a good bill, and I am proud to support it. Mr. Speaker, nothing can be more important to our Nation's future than our children. Numerous indicators of the well-being of our children paint a mixed picture of both success and shortcomings. I think this will give us a mixed view of what our Nation's future holds. Reports of both gains and continued unmet needs are also apparent with regard to a variety of other pediatric health care needs. Infant mortality, immunization rates, pediatric asthma care, youth violence, and the critically important fact that we still have 11 million children in this country who do not have health insurance. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4365 will increase research and prevention efforts targeted to improve the lives of the children. I do not think that we can question such a focus, but some have. If we have any doubt, according to a report issued by the President's National Science and Technology Council, the combined research spending for children in adolescence throughout the Federal Government represents less than 3 percent of the total Federal research enterprise. Thus, the Federal Government commits less than 3 percent of its research focused on the lives of children, despite the fact that they are 30 percent of our population and they are our future. I would like to take the opportunity to highlight 2 important provisions of this bill. First of all, diabetes affects 16 million Americans and their families, often striking in childhood and becoming a lifelong disease. Type 1 diabetes is one of the most costly, chronic diseases of childhood. Now we are seeing Type 2 diabetes increasing among children. I am pleased that this bill includes a provision authorizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to implement a national public health effort to address Type 2 in youth. It also expands clinical trials for children with diabetes to move some of the remarkable research on diabetes from the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside. Today's bill also incorporates the provisions from my legislation, H.R. 4008, that will require the Organ Transplantation Network to adopt criteria policies and procedures that will address the unique health care needs of children and organ transplantation. Virtually identical language was passed by this House just last month by a vote of 420 to zero. It improves the lives of children by requiring the Organ Transplantation Network to adopt criteria policies and procedures that address the unique needs of children. Through the passage of this bill, we have the opportunity to help millions of children in this country. We owe to our children, our families, and our Nation nothing less than this sound investment in our future.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everybody who has worked on this legislation, most particularly my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Eshoo) and my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). In general, it is a good piece of legislation. However, I am deeply concerned about the provision included on human papilloma virus, or HPV, because I think from a public health perspective it is misguided. I agree with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology that the condom labeling requirement may very well have the unintended consequence of discouraging condom use, which, as we all know, is very effective in preventing other diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Taking steps to make HPV a reportable disease also does not make sense, since most all of these cases do resolve on their own and only a very small percentage lead to cervical cancer. We should not be trying to instill panic here. Rather, we should be trying to encourage every American woman to have regular pap smear examinations, which are still the state of the art; and then we should finish researching all of these other issues.

Mr. DeGETTE

Mr. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Aspen Skiing Company as a leader in environmental responsibility. This is certainly not the first commendation the Aspen Skiing Company has received. In 1999 alone, the company became the first back to back winner of the Golden Eagle Award for Overall Environmental Excellence in the ski industry. It was the first skiing company and only U.S. business to receive the prestigious British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Environmental Award. Additionally, the Aspen Skiing Company was recognized by the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation for its outstanding environmental educational programs. As the award judges for the Golden Eagle Award noted, ``Aspen Skiing Company's programs show a wide-range and detailed commitment to an ecological perspective in every area of their business.'' I whole- heartedly agree that the Aspen Skiing Company has, ``without peer, established itself as an industry leader in environmentalism.'' But Aspen is not resting on its laurels. The Skiing Company continues to develop innovative environmental programs and partnerships to protect the forests in which it resides and its commitment to the local community. The Aspen Skiing Company has entered into a cooperative with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment to develop a pollution prevention based environmental management strategy that focuses on energy and waste conservation, and solid waste reduction to be used as a model for the skiing industry. It has developed a Natural Resource Management Plan to ensure vegetative diversity and wildlife protection on its mountains. The Aspen Skiing Company founded the Environment Foundation, a nonprofit, employee-funded and directed foundation which awarded more than $120,000 to 34 diverse local environmental groups since its inception, and continues to protect local habitat, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Aspen Skiing Company continues to be a leader in environmentally sensitive development, not only within the ski industry, but all industry. Aspen's efforts to reduce the impact it has on the land, and conserve habitat and resources are exemplified by two of its recent projects, the Sundeck Restaurant and the Cirque Lift. The Sundeck Restaurant, at the top of the mountain is on tract to be a fully certified ``green building.'' The effort began with the deconstruction, rather than demolition of the old building, enabling materials to be salvaged and reused. The new building will utilize the latest ``green'' technology, including energy efficient windows, low toxicity paints, and recycled and recyclable materials. When the Aspen Skiing Company decided to construct a new lift above tree line, it recognized the sensitivity of this ecosystem and proceeded accordingly. The construction of the Cirque Lift was completed without bulldozers or mechanized ground equipment. The heavy items for the lift, such as the lift poles and concrete, were airlifted by helicopter while all other supplies were carried up on foot, an astounding task at high elevation that speaks volumes to the company's commitment to protecting this delicate ecosystem. The lift itself continues that commitment, as it is the State of Colorado's first wind powered ski lift. Aspen Skiing Company has also shown leadership in the public realm advocating for the protection of public lands and open spaces, which are so important to Colorado's wildlife and the quality of life for all Americans. I have no doubt that the Aspen Skiing Company will continue to be a leader in efforts to protect the environment. I applaud their accomplishments.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the majority whip got up just a few minutes ago on this floor and said, ``Abortion is a stain on this country. A ban on partial-birth abortion is just the first step.'' Make no mistake about it, my friends. This bill is intended, as he said, as just the first step to banning all abortions. That is why the leadership has chosen this issue, this wedge issue, in this election year with complete disregard to whether or not the bill is constitutional or whether or not the bill can be upheld. Nineteen State and Federal courts have already ruled that the definitions in bills like this one are overly broad and as a result would subject physicians to prosecution if they perform any abortion procedures. We would not be surprised if, even if by some slight chance the bill were upheld, it would effectively end most all abortions in this country. Again, make no mistake about it, that is the true intent of the supporters of this bill. This Congress and the American public have got to recognize and understand that. Nobody in this Congress wants to see abortions. This legislation denigrates the experiences of women like Eileen Sullivan who was anxious to start her family and was eagerly awaiting the arrival of her baby when she received the horrifying news that her baby would not live. Her doctor decided that this procedure was the only one that could be used to preserve her life and her health and help her have babies in the future. To pass this bill today is to deny women like her a safe and compassionate procedure when deep tragedy strikes the family. To pass this legislation is to allow the Federal Government to grievously interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and slither its way into the most personal decision a family can make. I urge my colleagues to think rationally and compassionately on an issue that is anything but rational and compassionate before they vote today. To assume that it is easy for any woman to choose this or any other procedure is offensive to all women who face such a heartbreaking situation. And it is indeed offensive to all women to think that they would have this procedure just for fun. Mr. Speaker, I would ask those considering voting yes on this bill to think of the women in your life. What would you do if the doctor asked you to choose between your wife or your daughter and her pregnancy?

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the NCAA Division II National Basketball Champion Metro State Roadrunners from Denver, Colorado. The Roadrunners capped off a remarkable season with a stunning victory over Kentucky Wesleyan, last year's NCAA Division II champions, by a score of 97-79 on March 25, 2000. Metro State finished the season with a 33-4 record and bring home to Denver the State of Colorado's first NCAA national basketball championship trophy ever. Metro State placed four players on the NCAA Elite Eight All- Tournament Team, including Most Valuable Player DeMarcos Anzures, John Bynum, Lee Barlow and Kane Oakley. It marked the first time four players from one team made the all-tournament team. In addition, Anzures, a senior who previously played for Denver's Skyview High School, was named a first team All-American and Coach Mike Dunlap was named National Coach-of-the-Year by the National Association of Basketball Coaches. The Roadrunners finished a tremendous three-year run that includes a 86-15 record, three Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference championships and two North Central Regional titles. Although Metro State began this year with two straight losses, the Roadrunners rebounded by winning 33 of their next 35 games and doing so in a rather dominating fashion. In fact, Metro State led the nation in scoring margin by outscoring opponents by an average of 19.1 points a game, including their 18-point victory in the NCAA title game. Members of the 1999-2000 Metro State Roadrunners include: Anzures, Bynum, Barlow, Dunlap, Michael Alcock, Rashawn Fulcher, Shane Ah Matt, Todd Gower, Jason Johnson, Patrick Mutombo, Clayton Smith, Chris Ford and Jody Hollins. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting these fine young men and Coach Dunlap for their outstanding achievement and steller performance throughout this entire season. Congratulations to everybody associated with Metro State for bringing home this impressive championship--a victory of which all of the people of Denver and the State of Colorado can be very proud.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my distinguished ranking member, for yielding me the time to speak on this important issue. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We must stop attempting to pass a nuclear waste bill merely to say we have passed a bill. This is high-level nuclear waste we are talking about sweeping under the rug here, not just household dust; and it must be treated accordingly. As we all know, one of the more important issues we face at the beginning of the 21st century is how to dispose of our spent nuclear fuel. Solving this issue is essential to the future environmental health and safety of this country. Unlike some, I am not unequivocally opposed to storing the fuel in one safe centralized location. Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish this very important goal. This bill will allow Yucca Mountain to be used as a default temporary storage facility because we will not be able to do the adequate testing to first determine its true viability as a permanent storage facility. I visited Yucca Mountain last year, and I toured the site. I was very encouraged about the progress that was being made towards certification as a permanent site. But we cannot rush this testing. We cannot move up the water seepage test or the heat test or any of the other tests. Instead, what we are trying to do is take this action before the study is completed. This is dangerous and this is ill-advised. I asked the scientists when I was there where the temporary storage would be until it was certified; and they said, well, they could put it over there or they could put it over there, whatever they decide. I do not think this is sound nuclear policy. I am equally troubled by the dangerous potential for accident during transportation of the fuel through dangerous mountain passes and heavily populated urban areas, both of which we have in my State. In 1984, in this overpass in Denver, Colorado, we narrowly survived a brush with disaster from deadly cargo when a tractor trailer carrying a torpedo rolled over right here in the Mousetrap in central Denver and endangered millions of people in the metropolitan area. Luckily, the torpedo did not explode. But it shut down the entire city of Denver for an entire day. Imagine if we do not have local involvement in these transportation decisions what high-level nuclear waste will do. Madam Speaker, rushing to pass a very flawed bill is not smart public policy. Rather, it is a political act to force the President to once again veto a bad bill. Let us do the science. Let us do the science right. Let us survey a site. Let us have involvement from local transportation officials, and let us have smart transportation routes before we go anywhere. Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I believe that we should vote down this turkey, as my distinguished ranking member says, and go back to the drawing board.