Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, just to underscore the point, Utah got a sweetheart deal in the settlement, but as my esteemed colleague from Oregon said, California, Colorado, all the rest of the country does not have this deal, so we are all betting on the something. Why not put this memorandum in the underlying bill if it is such a great idea.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. As a woman and a Member of Congress, I am appalled to think that we would cut money for family planning in order to say we are cutting money from abortion. If we have family planning, all around the world we will reduce the number of abortions; and it seems to me that is a good thing. The UNFPA money is not going to force abortions in China. This is a red herring. The former director of that group said any form of coercion is unacceptable. Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the notable accomplishments of an extraordinary gentleman in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this individual for his exceptional record of civic leadership and invaluable service. It is to commend this outstanding citizen that I rise to honor William Hornby on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Bill Hornby has devoted much of his time, skill and energy to making Denver and the West a better place. Born in Kalispell, Montana on July 14, 1923, he attended the public schools and went on to receive a degree in humanities from Stanford University and a master's degree in journalism. After serving in the United States Army as a language expert in the Signal Corps, he worked in public relations on the Marshall Plan in Europe from 1948 to 1952. Bill Hornby came to Denver in 1957 as a copyreader for the Denver Post and over the past 40 years, has served as managing editor, editor-in- chief and as a columnist on civic affairs and Western regional history. He has been a powerful advocate for a free press and has been placed on the American Society of Newspaper Editors' freedom of information honor role. His interest in Colorado and our Western heritage led him to the Colorado Historical Society where he has served as a trustee and a board member of the associated Colorado Historical Foundation. He is an emeritus trustee for the Buffalo Bill Historical Association and he has written books concerning the history of the Denver Post and Rotarians International, where he served as District Governor. Bill continues to live in Denver with his wife, Barbara Sudler Hornby, and their dog, Benji. He is chairman of the Denver Planning Board and Chairman of the Education Foundation for the Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System. He has served on the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education and on the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education. Bill has also been a director of the Clayton Foundation, which is primarily focused on early childhood education. He is a trustee emeritus of the University of Montana Foundation and is a former President of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It comes as no surprise that Mr. Hornby has received several awards and honors during his lengthy career as an editor, journalist and educator. In 1990, the Center for the American West presented him with the Wallace Stenger Award, which is given to persons who have made as sustained contribution to the cultural identity of the West. He received the Dana Crawford Award of Colorado Preservation, Inc., in 2000 for his considerable contribution to historic preservation. And in 2001, he received the Unsung Heroes Award from the City & County of Denver. Please join me in commending William Hornby, a distinguished citizen. It is the strong leadership he exhibits on a daily basis that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight a piece of the Dingell/ Rangel substitute that pertains to Disproportionate Share Hospitals. This was an amendment I offered in the Energy & Commerce Committee and I understand that since our mark-up the DSH allocation has been increased and I want to commend this action. I know there is real bipartisan support on this issue and I want to just reiterate how important it is that we get funding to our DSH hospitals right away. The provision in the substitute would give DSH hospitals a large portion of the funding that has been cut in the past year. It would expend a billion dollars in FY '03 and then adjust payments in future years to ensure that our vital DSH hospitals do not go bankrupt. The reason it is so important that this money is available next year is that our DSH hospitals have already suffered a cut of a billion dollars in the past year and now are in such bad shape financially, if we help them in dribs and drabs then many of them won't be around ten years from now. There are public hospitals who are currently planning to make cuts of 25 percent next year in order to try to stay afloat. Mr. Speaker, our public hospitals cannot afford these cuts. We are in real danger of losing numerous DSH hospitals over the next few years if we do not assist them right now. This provision also helps the low-DSH hospitals which are the most strapped of all. Eighteen states have low DSH hospitals due to historical expenditures that were basically frozen in place at a certain point. These low-DSH states have been struggling for years with their Medicaid payments and they are currently held to only 1 percent of their Medicaid expenditures. My amendment, which accomplishes the same thing that a bill Rep. Heather Wilson introduced, would raise this to 3 percent which would help these states considerably. While low-DSH states have been dealing with this situation for years, recently it has gotten much worse. The pressure on these hospitals has increased due to numerous factors such as increasing numbers of the uninsured, increasing numbers of Medicaid patients, the extreme situation so many states are in in terms of budget crises. The fact of the matter is that DSH hospitals need help and need help now. They can't wait and we need to rectify this situation while the DSH hospitals are still around to help our most vulnerable citizens.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, we are in a very curious position in Congress today. We standing here debating a critical bill to provide funding for our intelligence services while we ask whether those intelligence services might have suffered a massive failure in assessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. I use the word ``might'' very deliberately because we do not know whether there was an intelligence failure. That is why we need an investigation, and I commend my colleague from California for pushing for an investigation within the committee because not only the public deserves to know, but we deserve to know equally. I am puzzled by many of my colleagues' lack of curiosity on this issue. The question of where Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons now may be is critical to the security of our Nation, and yet more than 90 days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, we have still not located one chemical weapon, biological weapon, or even their precursors production facilities or delivery systems. We went to war because of the imminent threat those weapons posed. We need to find those weapons if they are there; and if they are not there, we need to ask the question what caused this massive intelligence failure that was presented to Congress as an imminent threat to our national security? Our soldiers in Iraq are still engaged in combat operations. Saddam Hussein may still be out there, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are still on the loose, and we need to ensure through our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that we have solid information as we move forward. Congress has to exercise its powers of oversight openly and honestly and look into these in a thorough way. That is what our constituents deserve. That is what the American people deserve. I look forward to working with the committee to make sure this happens in a timely fashion.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the splendid efforts and notable accomplishments of an extraordinary woman in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this outstanding artist, educator and civic leader for her exceptional record of invaluable service. It is to commend this outstanding citizen that I rise to honor Ms. Gwen Bowen on the occasion of her 50th year teaching dance in Denver, Colorado. ``Miss B,'' as she is affectionately known by current and former students, was born in Denver, Colorado. She attended McKinley Elementary School, Grant Junior High School and graduated from Denver's South High School. Following her graduation from the University of Denver, she returned to McKinley Elementary School to teach first grade. But her love of dance inspired her to pursue a career in dance education. Ms. Bowen has amassed a distinguished record of service to our community. She founded the Gwen Bowen School of Dance where she has taught hundreds of young people, middle-aged and senior citizens throughout her career--a career distinguished by caring, competence and a sense of commitment to the community. Among her many students who have pursued professional careers in dance is Lynne Taylor Corbett, Tony Award Nominee for her choreography of the Broadway Play, Swing. Last year, Ms. Corbett came to Denver to pay tribute to this great lady of dance at a fundraiser for Arts for All, an organization founded by Ms. Bowen to create a community non-profit facility for all the arts in Denver. Despite having taught so many that have made major contributions to dance, she believes that her greatest rewards have come from teaching dance to blind students and the developmentally disabled. It comes as no surprise that Dance Magazine, a national publication, has recognized her outstanding contribution to the art of dance. Ms. Bowen has continually espoused that ``Dancing is a language and it touches people in many ways.'' Her life is a testament to this belief and while she has been an exceptional educator in dance, she has been an educator who teaches young and old alike to pursue meaning in their lives as well as the value of giving back to the community. Please join me in commending Ms. Gwen Bowen, a distinguished artist and educator. It is the strong leadership she exhibits on a daily basis that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, we have now gone 80 days without finding any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Questions are mounting as to whether the intelligence presented by the administration was manipulated or deliberately misinterpreted to create a false justification for the war. Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, this is a critical issue. America's international standing is being damaged by this failure; and more importantly, this issue raises serious doubts about our intelligence apparatus, and it raises potential constitutional concerns. I urge all of us to look carefully at this lapse, and I urge Congress to work in a bipartisan way to find out how this happened and to take steps to ensure that Congress and the American people are never misled when it comes to the issue of sending our American fighting men and women into harm's way about the purpose and the extent of the problem.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, if Members could actually wade through the absurd and fallacious rhetoric that is being bandied about today, it would not be difficult to see that this unconstitutional legislation is not actually about so-called partial-birth abortion; it is about two things and two things only. The first is the question of who gets to make the medical decisions about a woman's health, the actual woman, in consultation with her family and physician, or the agitated and hyperbolic politicians in attendance today? I vote for the woman. The second is the fact that passage of this bill is one more step down the path where a woman's right to choose no longer exists, and that is clearly what the House and Senate and White House have said all along. Do not be fooled. There is no actual procedure called this. So-called late-term abortions are quite rare, and they usually occur under the most difficult of circumstances. To pass this legislation is to elevate the rhetoric of politicians over the sound medical advice of doctors. To pass this bill today is to deny women a safe and legal procedure when tragedy strikes. If the other side really cared about these types of abortions, they would vote for women's health, which they do not. They would not pass an unconstitutional bill which is wasting this body's time, when we could be talking about child tax credits and other issues and not spending all of this money. They could really put their efforts on stopping unwanted pregnancies in general. I urge my colleagues to think rationally and compassionately and vote ``no'' on this terrible piece of legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H. Con. Res. 177, a resolution commending the members of the United States armed forces for their brave and successful actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the forces of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I support this bill because I believe it is important for the U.S. Congress to express its thanks to the tireless men and women of our armed forces. I also believe Congress has an absolute duty to demand that outstanding questions be answered by the Administration about the evidence used to justify a war in Iraq that put our troops in great danger. The valiant men and women of the U.S. armed forces left their homes and families to take up arms against two tyrannical regimes. Some members of the Reserves were activated for the war and took time away from their jobs--often taking significant cuts in their pay--to contribute to this endeavor. These men and women were given the call to duty, met it confidently, and returned as victors. Although the United States was victorious in Iraq, our job is far from over. Indeed, some members of our military remain in Iraq, attempting to establish law and order and a true peace. I believe the Administration owes it to the brave men and women of our military and to the American people to answer difficult questions about its justifications for war. Leading up to the Iraq war, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly stated that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda posed a direct threat to American national security. On March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney unambiguously told Meet the Press that Iraq had ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Despite American control of Iraq, the United States has found no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Even worse, some of the intelligence cited by the Administration about Iraq's nuclear program has turned out to be fraudulent. Between January and March 2003, both President Bush and Secretary Powell linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. In the State of the Union, the President warned that Iraq was harboring members of Al Qaeda. At the United Nations, Powell claimed that Iraq was sheltering Al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Musab Zarqawi, proving a ``sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.'' No proof has been produced to verify either of these statements. The lynchpin of the Administration's justification for war in Iraq was the presence of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. The President, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell all repeatedly spoke of Hussein's stockpile of biological and chemical munitions. Iraq was described as having such weapons labs across the country. No evidence has been found that Hussein possessed or was producing any biological or chemical weapons, much less the stockpiles asserted by the Administration. Congress has an obligation to ask questions about the statements made by the Administration to justify the war in Iraq and the Administration has a responsibility to answer them truthfully and honestly. The justifications for war matter. They matter to the men and women of the armed forces, whom we are saluting today, because the Administration used them to destroy a threat it maintains existed against the United States. They matter to the families and friends of those brave men and women who watched as their loved ones shipped off to war. They matter to the American people who are, after all, the final authority in this government.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas said not to worry, our servicewomen can exercise their full right of reproductive services that are legal here at home, because all they have to do is either get space available on an airplane or go to another country in the region where abortion is legal. Well, what do you say to the courageous servicewomen in Iraq who might be pregnant who might not have known they were pregnant when they left? Space available, that is not enough for them. If we are forcing them into a second trimester abortion, the health risks are much higher. So where are they going to go? Saudi Arabia? Iran? This is disrespectful to our fighting women all around the world. The problem is even greater now when we have servicewomen in large numbers deployed all around the world in regions where abortion is not safe and legal. So I challenge my colleagues who even consider voting against this amendment to look into the eyes of these servicewomen and say to them that they can fight for me, they can die for me, but they cannot make their own reproductive health choices.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I agree that 50 years of aggressive fire suppression necessitate an increase in fuels reduction. But H.R. 1904 is not the answer and public comment is not the enemy. Last year, wild fires swept across the West and my home state of Colorado was particularly hard-hit. The Hayman fire ultimately burned over 138,000 acres and the area surrounding Cheesman Reservoir, which provides much of the drinking water for my Denver district. Thinning efforts must focus on the wildland-urban interface. But H.R. 1904 fails to prioritize and fund efforts where they would have the greatest impact. The Miller-DeFazio substitute would guarantee that 85 percent of funding for thinning projects is spent near communities and watersheds; and provides for accelerated consideration of forest thinning projects near communities in non-controversial areas. I am also concerned about the ways in which this bill overreaches. Specifically, H.R. 1904 attempts to limit the amount of time the public has to file a legal challenge to any fuel reduction project to a mere 15 days, places limitations on the time judges have to review cases and mandates that they inform congressional committees whenever they extend injunctions beyond 45 days. There are reasons that groups like the NAACP and Planned Parenthood have come out against this bill and they have little to do with their positions on the state of our nation's forests. They have correctly foreseen the very real threat that this bill poses to fair process for administrative appeals and the undue burden it places on our court systems. And the public has little recourse. Shutting the public out of the decision making process will not facilitate or streamline anything. Many communities throughout the West are ready and eager to play a role in sustaining the forests that surround their homes. They should be meaningfully engaged in land management decisions that affect them, rather than closed out of the process altogether as H.R. 1904 proposes. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-considered legislation and instead support the logical and worthy substitute from my Democratic colleagues.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on April 26-28 2003, more than 1200 students from across the United States visited Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by an Act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from East High School in Denver, representing the State of Colorado won the Mountain/Plains Regions award at the finals. This award is presented to the school in each of five geographic regions with the highest cumulative score during the first two days of the national finals. These outstanding students competed against 48 other classes from throughout the nation and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of America constitutional government. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The students are Nate Allen, James Berry, Andrew Brown, Ryan Buescher, Susan Creighton, Patrick Cunningham, Ashley Eppler, Kari Fulton, Joseph Garvin, Steve Harlor, Russell Hedman, Alex Home, Ali Kimmell, Eimear Lynch, Suzanne McCartney, Jacob Pearson, Emily Schulman, Joseph Tabano, Marta Thompson, Maria Velazquez and Trevor Wolfson. Kudos to them and their leader, East High teacher Edna Sutton. I would also like to recognize the State Coordinator Jackie Johnson and District Coordinator Loyal Darr whose hard work and dedication helps make it all possible. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) revealed that students enrolled in the We the People program at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Another study by Richard Brody at Stanford University discovered that students involved in the We the People program develop greater commitment to democratic principles and values than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. The class from East High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the City of Englewood, Colorado, on the occasion of its Centennial Anniversary. I am truly honored to have the privilege of representing this outstanding community in the United States Congress. The City of Englewood will celebrate 100 years of colorful history and development on May 13, 2003. The Englewood area has a rich and colorful history. In the mid 1800's, the Ute Indians, buffalo, elk, antelope and other animals inhabited this alpine plateau. In 1858, gold was discovered in this area and the first gold mining camp was set up at the mouth of Little Dry Creek. As in many mining enclaves in the West, this miner's camp quickly became a popular spot for gambling, saloons and roadhouses. By 1903, the inhabitants of this prairie community wanted to burnish a solid community reputation and the Town of Englewood was incorporated on May 13, 1903. The City of Englewood has grown from its original prairie confines and a small gold mining camp, to become a city with a rich tradition of hospitality, vitality and amenities for residents and visitors alike. Englewood has become an urban mainstay of the southern Metro Denver area with a diverse population of over 31,000 residents. Englewood offers the congenial and sociable atmosphere of an authentic community with all the benefits of the larger adjacent metropolitan area. The City of Englewood has become a prominent business center, which is home to 1,841 businesses within industrial, manufacturing, and service sectors and enjoys a full-time employment base of approximately 23,500 jobs. The City Englewood is also fortunate to have outstanding cadre of public safety personnel including 56 firefighters, 73 full and part- time law enforcement personnel, 4 reserve officers, 36 support personnel, and 16 code enforcement personnel to safeguard the health and safety of residents, visitors and employers of the City of Englewood. The unique appeal of Englewood, coupled with the business and cultural amenities of the Rocky Mountain Region, make it an exceptional place to call home for both residents and businesses. With excellent access, a strong employee base and business-friendly government, Englewood has long been the location of choice for successful businesses--boasting more jobs and businesses per square mile than any other city in the Rocky Mountains. Under its progressive civic leadership, the City of Englewood has designed and built Englewood City Center. It replaced an aging suburban shopping mall and has become an outstanding multi-use urban civic center. This 55-acre public/private urban design project has coordinated the complex needs of city government, regional transportation system, national retailers and homebuilders, and nonprofit cultural organizations. It has transformed a single-use facility into a multi-purpose transit oriented development that is safely accessible by train, bus, car, bike and pedestrians. Englewood's access to the region's superior light rail transportation system helps to meet the needs of local business and the city's residents. This unique transportation amenity offers convenient, quick, and inexpensive access to Englewood's cultural, educational, entertainment, recreational, and business activities from throughout the Denver Metropolitan area. Englewood's central location makes the area a natural transportation hub, and offers a mere 15-minute commute to downtown Denver. The City of Englewood has been on the forefront of housing and community development by promoting and providing a varied mix of housing opportunities including affordable housing, expandable housing for different life-cycle stages, workforce housing opportunities, and housing for special needs. Englewood is responsible for maintaining sizable high quality civic infrastructure including 310 acres of parks and open space, 118 miles of City streets, and over 2,558 acres of residential land area. Of particular note is the Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the third largest publicly owned treatment facility in the State of Colorado. This advanced treatment plant restores wastewater for 25 districts in the Denver Metro area and treats approximately 27 million gallons of wastewater per day. Englewood is also on the forefront of preserving and maintaining a quality environment. The Englewood Brownfield sites provide excellent opportunities for businesses and investors to reuse and renovate commercial real estate expansion as well as the reuse of land for expansion and redevelopment. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the City of Englewood, Colorado, on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary. Residents of this community enjoy an exceptional quality of life, as they are part of a vibrant and cosmopolitan city that continues build a better future for its citizens and our children.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from a State where last week the legislature, controlled by the Republican Party, suspended every rule in the legislature, suspended the Colorado Constitution and without any public hearing whatsoever completely changed the congressional boundaries in Colorado, I think there are no more courageous people in this country right now than the 53 Texas State legislators who went to Ardmore, Oklahoma, and if there is anybody in this body who thinks that it is a fair process that they are contemplating in Texas, they should just look at what happened in Colorado last year. After the last census in Colorado, the legislature was unable to come up with congressional lines, so the court drew the lines. The election was held. The election was fair, and there were seven representatives elected in Colorado. Now, with no warning in the last 3 days of the congressional session, the Colorado Legislature completely changed the lines. There were no public hearings. There was an hour of testimony taken. All of the rules were suspended, including the rule in the State senate for recorded votes so people would know how their senators voted. If anybody thinks the Texas Legislature led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was thinking fairly, they are wrong.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Wallace H. Leiper and the United States Merchant Marines for their great services to this Nation. Mr. Leiper donated his model of the Liberty ship SS Zebulon Pike to the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York and sadly, he passed away the very day it arrived. He is a graduate of the Academy, the original ``Pike'' was his first ship and he served on several others in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans during World War II. The model is Mr. Leiper's labor of love and is intended to symbolize the contributions of all ships and seamen of the United States Merchant Marine as mandated by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. It should also be noted that the Merchant Marines continue to deliver support to our Armed Forces for recovery efforts in Iraq as well as food for starving nations. May 22nd is National Maritime Day and this year, two plaques honoring Mr. Leiper will be unveiled at the Academy. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to honor Mr. Leiper and all the men and women of the United States Merchant Marine who serve our country both in peace and in war.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the impressive history and notable accomplishments of an exceptional organization in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this outstanding organization for its civic leadership and record of extraordinary service benefiting the working men and women of the Denver area. It is to commend this remarkable organization that I rise to honor the Denver Area Labor Federation (DALF) on the occasion of its 120th Anniversary. While the Denver Area Labor Federation has weathered great adversity and tremendous change over the last century, it has always remained in the vanguard for economic and social justice. In the many struggles for dignity in the workplace, the labor movement in the Denver area continues to be a vital force for the rights of workers, for a living wage, a safe workplace, good benefits and for the continued well being of working families. Since its founding in 1882, DALF has led the way in forging strong alliances within the local labor movement, with the AFL-CIO, and with numerous community organizations including the Colorado Progressive Coalition, Jobs with Justice and the Colorado Coalition for Immigrant Rights. It has provided leadership for local unions in organizing drives, strikes and contract campaigns. It has conducted numerous trainings and education programs for Metro Area union members on common sense economics, organizing, political activism and community engagement. It has formed the Front Range Economic Strategy Center to enable working people to command the expertise and resources needed to hold local governments accountable for the development of affordable housing, secure health care, and the creation of jobs of sufficient quality to support families. It comes as no surprise that DALF was honored by the National AFL-CIO Convention for ``moving the fastest and the farthest on the road to becoming a Union City'' and that its political program is recognized nationwide for its innovation and success. Working people built our communities and our nation and it is the sacrifices of the men and women of the member locals of the Denver Area Labor Federation, past and present, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. Many of us in this country forget how far we've come. There was a time when fundamental decency and equity for working people were not a part of our shared values--a time when collective bargaining, workplace safety, minimum wage and benefits were not part of our common experience. For many of us in our community, decent working conditions and the basic employment benefits needed to subsist in our society are still out of reach. I am deeply appreciative of the invaluable work that the Denver Area Labor Federation and its member locals continue to do to advance the cause of a livable wage, worker rights and protections and to promote decent health care. DALF has made a tremendous impact on our community and implicit in its success has been the fundamental recognition that good wages, job security and quality health care builds a healthy and prosperous community. Please join me in commending the Denver Area Labor Federation. It is the strong leadership that this organization exhibits on a daily basis that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there is a crisis in medical malpractice insurance rates. Unfortunately, this bill does not mention insurance rates or offer solutions for the doctors who are feeling the burden of high premiums. H.R. 5 relies on the misconception that savings from malpractice litigation reforms will relieve high insurance premiums. However, litigation is not the cause of high malpractice insurance rates. There has been no increase in the rate of malpractice claims filed in recent years and the average payout has remained steady over the past decade. In fact, the one state that proponents of malpractice litigation reform continually cite as a success is California. What they don't say is that California's malpractice insurance rates only stabilized after the state reformed its insurance system. Despite this evidence, proponents of H.R. 5 have continued to represent this bill as a relief for physicians, rather than what it really is--a bill that will add additional injury to patients who have suffered from medical malpractice. H.R. 5 would cap non-economic damages at an arbitrary amount of $250,000 for people who have been injured by malpractice. Non-economic damages compensate people for injuries that are very real, like permanent disfigurement, loss of sight or a limb, loss of fertility, and wrongful death. The cap on non-economic damages is unfair and should not become law. This bill tells people like Heather Lewinski, a 17 year old girl who suffered permanent facial disfigurement at the hands of a plastic surgeon who lied to her and her family, that the severe pain, trauma, and suffering that she went through is worth $250,000. The bill tells people like Linda McDougal, whose breasts were amputated after she had been misdiagnosed with cancer, that the loss of her breasts and dignity is only worth $250,000. And it tells the family of Jesica Santillan, the little girl who died because the hospital failed to ensure that the heart and lungs she was about to receive would be compatible with her blood type, that their little girl's life was only worth $250,000. Some advocates of H.R. 5 say that the bill only caps non-economic damages, not economic damages and that a person can receive full economic compensation for their injuries. Yet, this is unfair to the millions of Americans who do not work--retirees, stay-at-home moms, children, and seniors because they do not have economic damages. For example, Heather Lewinski, who underwent surgery when she was only 8 years old, did not have any economic damages. Linda McDougal's medical bills were already paid for and her loss would not directly affect her future earning potential. Yet, she suffered emotional trauma and a loss of dignity. Is her loss worth an arbitrary amount that was determined by a group of politicians? I certainly don't think so. By adopting strict monetary caps on damages, Congress is creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. Medical malpractice claims are not increasing and juries are not making outrageous awards. According to the National Center for State Courts, there was no increase in the volume of medical malpractice claims between 1997 and 2001. Additionally, of the 16,676 medical malpractice cases with awards in 2001, only 5 percent were for $1 million or more. Clearly, this represents an extraordinarily small number of cases. I do not believe we should be restricting the rights of patients to receive fair and adequate compensation for their losses because of this very small number of large awards. If we truly want to fix the real crisis that is plaguing our nation's doctors, we need to take a good look at the insurance industry. According to a study using the insurance industry's own data and conducted by Americans for Insurance Reform, while the total amount paid out over the past decade by malpractice insurers directly tracks the rate of medical inflation, the premiums that insurance companies charge doctors increase or decrease depending on the economy. In my state of Colorado, which has certain caps on damages, insurance companies took in over $119 million in premiums in 2001. Yet, they only paid out $36 million. We should be taking a comprehensive approach to this crisis instead of placing unfair burdens on patients. We should be looking at the insurance cycle, how insurers manage investments and reserves, and financial pressures that health care payers place on providers and how that affects the way care is delivered. Instead, we are considering a bill that is akin to curing a headache by amputating an arm. Arbitrarily limiting patients' rights is not fair and it will not solve the problem. Stand up for the rights of patients and oppose this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in the April 22, 2001, edition of the magazine ``Science,'' researcher Irving Weissman and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore said, ``The wrong action here could close the door to an important avenue of scientific and clinical discovery.'' They were talking, of course, about the restrictions on Federal funding of stem cell research. As Ronald Reagan said, here they go again. Everybody agrees that we must ban human cloning and our substitute does just that, but the difference in this bill is we allow for the very important somatic nuclear cell transfer technology which is being developed and which will be the cure for many diseases that affect millions of people both in the United States and worldwide. I hear the opponent of our substitute saying, oh, no, stem cell research will not be hurt, but that could not be farther from the truth, and here is why. Stem cell research is continuing, but the base bill will ban the somatic nuclear cell transfer research that we are talking about. What this research does at this point is it takes somatic cells, so-called therapeutic cloning techniques, it replaces the nucleus, and it makes new cells of tissues that will cure diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. This type of research is truly the clinical extension of stem cell research because without this research we will never have islet cells for diabetics. We will never have the cells for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or nerve damage because we will not be able to match the patient's tissue. We are not and we do not support creating embryos for the purpose of this research. Instead, what happens is researchers use existing embryos from reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of anyway, and there is no way that this research will be used to clone a human being, period. It will be a criminal act under our substitute. I do not think people should demagogue this issue. These are very difficult ethical and medical issues, but unless we have some control over the research and unless we ban human cloning, we will not be able to have cures for all of these very important diseases. As the co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I think we need to do everything we can to support this important cell research but also to have strict control. Forty Nobel Laureates agree with this. More than two thirds of Americans agree with this. Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack agree with this. And here is what Nancy Reagan said in a letter dated January 29 of this year: ``There are so many diseases that can be cured, we cannot turn our back on this.'' Do not turn your back on all of these procedures.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I commend the President for his vigilant efforts to protect the security of the United States. We stand united in our commitment to this cause. But there are legitimate differences about the best way to protect our Nation. The President has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to Congress that unilateral military action against Iraq at this time is justified. We have seen over the last 10 years that Iraq is trying to amass chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons. But we have seen no evidence of their success, and we have seen no evidence of a delivery system. I would ask, given the evidence we have today, is this reason why we should vote for this resolution which essentially gives the President unfettered ability to go into Iraq with a first strike military attack in a unilateral fashion, potentially destabilizing the entire world order at this time? I say it does not. Why are we discussing a war with Iraq right now? What has changed in the last 10 years to make the threat from Iraq imminent? So imminent, in fact, that Congress has got to rush to pass this resolution now before we can let the weapons inspectors back in, before we can find any evidence of an imminent threat? What information have we have recently obtained that has led the President to believe the war is absolutely necessary now? Many of us in Congress felt that it was essential that the President come to Congress for action before he attacked another country unilaterally, and we were pleased when he did come to Congress; but if he is going to come to us and ask us to pass this type of resolution, he has to give us the information on which we can base our vote, and to date, I have not, and many Members of Congress, no one I know, has been given information by the administration that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to the United States. We must have that information before we can pass a resolution like this, especially since the U.N. Security Council is working hard to send weapons inspectors back in and to have international cooperation in dealing with Iraq and in dealing with Saddam Hussein. International cooperation and the support of the United States people are what will make any action against Iraq successful, just as we had success in our initial action in Afghanistan. I might add, I have had myself now over 3,000 phone calls and letters from my constituents and congressional office, and five have supported this type of uninformed unilateral action. This is not the support of the United States people. Some of my colleagues have made the tortured analogy that we face the same challenge with Saddam Hussein that our predecessors did with Adolph Hitler in 1936; but Iraq is not Nazi Germany, as evil as they are. We have been given no evidence that the Iraqi military has grown stronger in the 10 years since 1991. We have been given no evidence that Iraq intends to cross its borders into Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Iran, as it did in 1991 when the U.S. did intervene; and we have been given no evidence that Iraq is close to possessing nuclear weapons, merely that it would like to. If the President has acquired intelligence that answers these questions, he must provide it to Congress and let us know because today he is asking Congress to authorize unilateral action against Iraq. This is a not a debate about appeasement versus action. We must not and cannot try to appease someone like Saddam Hussein; but what it is is a question of acting alone or at most with one ally versus building a global coalition as we did 11 years ago to oppose Iraq's aggression against a peaceful neighbor. To triumph in this effort we must do that again. The United States is at a crossroads in the war against terrorism. To this point, we have shown the world the threat posed by terrorists to our national security. We have successfully built an international coalition to combat this threat, and together we have led the coalition to rout terrorism from its role in Afghanistan. This is the path we must take, and that is why we must oppose this resolution today.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as a former State legislator, I am continually amazed how this Congress seems to think that we are the 'super' State legislature and that we should solve all the problems that we in our cynicism do not think the States can solve. The truth is regulation of medicine is a State issue and regulation of medical malpractice is a State issue. Every State has a malpractice statute, and right now the majority of the States are reviewing those statutes to see if they are adequately addressing this issue. I think we should leave it up to the States, and that is one reason I oppose this bad, bad bill. I know there is a malpractice insurance crisis in this country. I talk to my doctors just like everybody else, but I want to ask my colleagues this, why should the patients suffer twice because we want to reward the insurance companies? The patients are being asked to sacrifice their rights under this legislation. The doctors are still going to have to pay high insurance premiums because nothing in this legislation stops the insurance companies from continuing to rack up the rates, and the ones that are going to suffer are the patients. In California, they have had a statute for many, many years. The malpractice insurance rates are higher than the States that do not have these kind of caps, and why? We are putting no limitations on these out-of-control insurance rates. In the meantime, here is what this terrible bill does to the patients, to people who are actually injured by medical malpractice. The first one is the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages. As I said in committee, I think people misunderstand what noneconomic damages are. They are not punitive damages. They are very real damages that patients suffer. They are things like loss of a leg, disfigurement, pain and suffering and the loss of fertility. Under common law, noneconomic damages would not be capped, but when we cap them at $250,000, victims who do not work outside the home like women, children, others with very low economic damages will not be able to be adequately compensated. There is a case in Colorado where a child fell on a stick and his doctor did not adequately diagnose it, and that child, if he were limited to $250,000, his mother had to quit her job. He has been limited to a wheelchair. His chance to succeed as a citizen in our society is gone, and we are not going to adequately compensate him for that all because the insurance companies want to charge excessive rates. That is wrong. That is wrong for that kid, that is wrong for his family, and that is wrong for every single patient who suffers at the hands of malpractice. The second problem with this bill, well, there are many problems, but the second I want to talk about is the elimination of joint and several liability. Under common law, defendants are jointly and severally liable. When we eliminate it, victims will not receive compensation. Please defeat this bad bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate some of the points that have been made but most importantly the fact that we should defeat this rule. This rule is a closed rule. It did not allow a very simple amendment which would have essentially said that doctors will not be gagged from telling their patients what is the best medical information for those patients. Why on earth with an issue like this that was never even taken through committee, and I know that because I sit on the committee of jurisdiction, would we then bring a closed rule to the floor with a bill as outrageous and sweeping as this bill? I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. And when we look at the consequences of passing the bill, even if the rule did pass, even if the doctors would be gagged, this bill is such an expansion of law that we cannot pass legislation that will hurt patients so badly. This legislation is the biggest gag rule we have ever seen. It will not protect Catholic hospitals from providing abortions or even referrals to most people. They are already exempt under current law. The bill would allow any hospital, any health insurance, any clinic, any HMO to deny services, coverage, or even referrals for abortions for any reason whatsoever. Proponents of this bill will say the purpose is to ensure that hospitals with religious affiliations do not provide services that conflict with their values. This is simply not true. First of all, they do not have to right now. Secondly, there is nothing in this bill about opting out of services or information due to religious values. In fact, there is nothing in this bill about religion at all. Anti-choice lawmakers are trying once again to back-door a bill that restricts women's reproductive choices, and this time they are hiding behind the Vatican to do it. Let me say it again. Catholic hospitals do not have to provide abortion services under current law, and individual providers at any health care facility can opt out of providing abortions by invoking a conscience clause. This is current law. Let me tell my colleagues what most health care entities do have to do. They have to give women information about their options. A law preventing them from doing so is a gag rule, plain and simple. And the majority of people in this country want their full medical options and are fiercely opposed to gag rules. Let me tell my colleagues what current laws that this bill would override. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986 requires that if a pregnant woman who comes to an emergency room is dying, is dying, due to the complications of the pregnancy, they have to try to save her life. If an abortion is deemed an immediate lifesaving measure, then they do have to provide one. This bill would overturn that. So if you think it is acceptable for pregnant women to bleed to death in emergency rooms because some hospitals have a policy of no abortion even under the circumstances of the life of the mother or rape or incest, vote for this bill. Today if a Medicaid patient comes to an emergency room after being raped and is found to be pregnant as a result of the rape, that hospital is at least obligated to give her a referral if she asks for one. This bill would overturn that. This bill would let a hospital say, I am sorry, you were raped, you want an abortion, but we cannot give you any information about that. So if you want victims of rape or incest to be ignorant of their options, vote for this bill. If you want HMOs to have more power over what reproductive services they will pay for, vote for this bill. If you want to tell every city, State, and locality that we know better than they do how to provide reproductive health for their citizens, vote for this bill. But if you do not believe in gag rules, if you believe women deserve access to information, if you believe in States' rights, if you believe the women of this country have the right to make their own decisions about their health care, vote against this bill and, importantly, vote against the rule.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of my constituents, Ambrosio Solano, who served bravely and honorably in the U.S. Army during World War II. Mr. Solano was drafted when he was 18 years old and participated in the D-day invasion at Normandy. After suffering shrapnel wounds, Mr. Solano returned to the United States following almost 2 years of dutiful service. Yet, Mr. Solano never received official recognition of the pain and suffering he gave for his country. Mr. Solano never received any of the medals owed him by the federal government. Now, 56 years later, on August 28, 2002, Mr. Solano finally received his 14 medals, including two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and an Oak Leaf Cluster. I am honored to count Mr. Solano as one of my constituents and I would like to include for the record the following editorial praising Mr. Solano. It appeared in the Denver Post on August 30, 2002. ``We're gratified that Ambrosio Solano finally received the 14 medals he earned fighting for his country during World War II--although we're dismayed that the Army veteran of the Normandy invasion had to wait 56 years for recognition. Even his family knew little about Solano's combat experiences because he seldom talked about the war with his wife or children. After keeping his own counsel for nearly half a century, Solano began to open up to his son, former U.S. Attorney Henry Solano, as they motored cross country from Boston to Denver in 1994. Solano, 76, is a native of Chapel, N.M., who grew up in New Mexico and Colorado. He was drafted into the Army in 1943 and went ashore at Normandy on June 6, 1944, among the first waves of invading American troops who spearheaded the liberation of Europe. Initially, Solano served in the 29th Infantry Division but later became a paratrooper and transferred to the 101st Airborne Division. He recounted the horrors of the amphibious invasion on the Normandy beaches, recalling the clank of the landing craft's ramp as it dropped and going forward into German gunfire that awaited the invading troops. He remembered standing waist-deep in water and seeing the bodies of slain American soldiers floating by. After he joined the paratroops, Solano jumped into the battle for St. Lo, where he suffered shrapnel wounds. Later, as American troops swept into the Rhineland, Solano was wounded in the leg. Among Solano's belated decorations, in addition to two Purple Hearts, are the Bronze Star for combat service, Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, European-African Middle- Eastern Campaign Medal, Combat Infantry badge and World War II Honorable Service button. Solano was discharged from the Army in 1946 and returned to Colorado, where he worked for Ideal Cement Co. for 36 years. Because the war kept him from going to college, Solano, who's been married 52 years, was determined that his four children would do so. Son Henry is a lawyer and another son, Ambrose, is a doctor. About three years ago, Solano wrote to the government, hoping to finally get his medals, but to no avail. Then Representative Diana DeGette, D-Denver, stepped in and made it happen. You may not know Ambrosio Solano personally, but the mere fact that you are free to read these words means you owe him thanks for fighting to preserve your freedoms by helping defeat Nazi tyranny. We can never adequately repay Solano and his comrades, but the medals he finally received are his country's way of thanking them, however belatedly, for their noble service and sacrifices.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 3763, the ``Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act.'' This agreement accepts almost every Democratic proposal contained in the ``Sarbanes'' bill and has only been altered by adding increased penalties for corporate crimes. I am pleased that the Republicans in Congress agreed to the much stronger Democratic proposals that will reach to the very roots of the problems in corporate America that caused the collapse of companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia. Unfortunately, the country will most likely continue to see companies fall due to accounting improprieties and, while I believe this is a strong bill, more must certainly be done. However, the changes in our nation's financial accounting structure contained in this agreement will strengthen the confidence and trust of investors and will increase the transparency and acceptability of financial statements. The agreement that we are considering today is almost identical to the Democratic proposals contained in the ``Sarbanes'' legislation that passed the Senate 97-0. The fact that the Republicans accepted the Democrats' position certainly shows that the Republicans in Congress are feeling the heat over corporate accountability. After all, the American public trusts Democrats to fix the problems in corporate America and to increase investor confidence in the markets. The proposal offered by Republicans to deal with corporate abuse was to increase penalties for corporate crime, coupled with weak, industry- controlled standard-setting bodies. They wanted to deal only with the ``bad apples'' instead of getting to the heart of the problem. The conference committee agreed to accept their increased penalties for crime. But, the conference committee recognized that corporate abuses will not end until Congress makes changes that attack the root of the problems. So the conferees accepted the Democratic proposals almost in their entirety. As we have seen from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations, auditors had guiding principles that were extremely weak and easily ignored by accountants and corporate management. Additionally, accounting improprieties were purposely overlooked because the auditors became too cozy with the companies they audited and made huge profits from non-audit consulting services. To address these problems, this agreement creates a new and independent accounting board that has authority to establish auditing standards, investigate accounting firms that conduct audits of publicly-traded companies, and enforce their rules. The agreement also mandates auditor independence and bans most non-audit consulting services. As we have seen in the past, much-needed accounting reforms were impeded by industry officials who threatened to withhold funding from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The new auditing board and the current FASB will be given an independent funding stream to ensure that important financial standards will not be senselessly squashed by greedy industry executives. The agreement also increases and strengthens corporate governance by requiring senior executives to attest to the accuracy of their company's financial statements, under penalty of law. It also requires corporate executives to repay any compensation or profits received as a result of their accounting trickery. Unfortunately, this agreement overlooks some issues that must be addressed, including expensing stock options and mandatory auditor rotation. Stock options that are not included on a company's financial statements can misrepresent the true value of a company. I am pleased that some companies have taken it upon themselves to include employee stock options on their financial statements and I am also pleased that the FASB has indicated that it will move quickly on a rule for expensing stock options. Additionally, requiring companies to rotate their auditors is very important to ensure that senior executives and the people auditing their companies do not become too cozy and allow a company to get away with accounting tricks. While these issues are not included in this agreement, I look forward to continue working on finding ways to deal with them. This agreement goes to the root of the problem of corporate abuse. It is strong and comprehensive, and will increase investor confidence, transparency, and the strength of the markets.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to vehemently oppose the Rogers amendment to H.R. 5005. This is a dangerous amendment that would create a slippery slope, eroding the intent and protection of the Posse Comitatus Act. Mr. Armey plans to offer a manager's amendment that includes a sense of Congress re-affirming the intent of the Posse Comitatus Act, yet, it would have no legal impact. Furthermore, if the Rogers amendment is included in the final version of H.R. 5005, the sense of Congress will provide absolutely no protection against the dangers of the Rogers amendment. It is currently illegal for the military to conduct law enforcement, and Congress must not threaten this principle by passing the Rogers amendment. For 124 years, the Posse Comitatus Act has protected the American public from the power and reach of the military in the enforcement of the law. The authors of the Declaration of Independence railed against the power of King George's army in the affairs of the civil government, and, in America's earliest years, the public rightly feared the strength of a standing army in times of peace. The military is not trained to protect individual rights or the principle of innocent until conviction. Nor should they be. The military is charged with the protection of the nation against armed attack by foreign hostile regimes. We should never allow the military to become entangled in the enforcement of our civil laws. The Rogers amendment would give the military a permanent position within the Department of Homeland Security to make changes to our government's law enforcement structure. Should the Rogers amendment be included in the final version of the Homeland Security Act, the military would be able to influence civilian use of the Internet, agricultural inspection activities, and customs enforcement, among others. We do not want generals in the Pentagon influencing civilian use of the Internet. We do not want the Pentagon issuing visas and standing on our borders watching who comes and who goes. We do not live in a Communist state and the military should not be enforcing our civil laws. While Mr. Armey will offer an amendment to re-affirm the intent of the Posse Comitatus Act, it will have no legal effect. The Rogers amendment would. Vote no on the Rogers amendment.