Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, although I believe it is imperative to install explosion detection devices at our airports as soon as possible, we must also understand what is reasonable and not lull the public into false hopes by setting arbitrary and unattainable deadlines. We need to listen to the experts and agree to an extended deadline for implementing explosion detection systems to improve baggage screening at our nation's airports. That is why I am voting against the amendment to strike the language form the homeland security bill to extend the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) deadline. I remain deeply concerned about passenger safety and I believe we ought to continue to take aggressive steps to ensure it. Nevertheless, December 31, 2002 is an arbitrary deadline. Worse than that, it is an arbitrary deadline that our nation's largest airports cannot meet. For example, in my district, Denver International Airport (DIA) has already implemented many safeguards that exceed TSA standards. However, TSA has failed to fund the equipment that needs to be installed. As a result, if we push forward with a band-aid solution, the large machines that are currently TSA-certified would force passengers to stand outside waiting for their bags to be checked. We are talking about Denver, Colorado. We have cold winters. And having crowds of people waiting outside where cards drive up to let out passengers would create a new safety hazard. An interim solution that provides a less-than- optimal level of security and that will result in unacceptable delays to the traveling public is unacceptable. Increasing passenger safety is our mutual goal and there is technology that will better achieve that awaiting certification this November. It has been shown to have a greater rate of positive detection, a decreased rate of false positives, and it is a more reasonable size. Denver is planning on implementing this technology and DIA will serve as a test site for the rest of the nation. TSA needs to certify this superior technology and make the financial commitment to allow airports like DIA to begin working on these vital projects. Thus far, the TSA's funding delays have hindered DIA's ability to commence building the necessary infrastructure. DIA and other airports should not be punished for the lack of coordination and support from the TSA. Let's get it right the first time and implement the technology that will best achieve greater safety and reassure the flying public. We need to recognize the very real, very serious and very costly obstacles the TSA and airports face and allow the airports to continue to utilize one or more of the current screening methods required by the TSA beyond the December 31, 2002, deadline. Let's not insist on an arbitrary deadline that will not and cannot be met. This should not be construed as a weakening of Congress' resolve. Our nation's airports and airlines have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the flying public. However they determine to achieve this, it needs to happen with all due speed.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Today, I join all of Denver in sorrow at the tragic loss of one our city's great heroines and in offering my heartfelt condolences to her sons, Joseph and Anthony. A person of great courage and selflessness, Jeannie Van Velkinburgh exemplifies the virtues Denver strives for. On the night of November 18, 1997, Jeannie was shot and paralyzed while trying to prevent the murder of Oumar Dia, a West African immigrant living in Denver, who was attacked just because he was black. Despite struggling everyday with her paralysis, Jeannie never regretted putting her own life at risk to try save the life of a stranger. Just last week she reiterated her conviction that she had done the right thing, saying, ``You're supposed to help people when things are going wrong . . . If you walk away, how can you call yourself a good person?'' Everyone in our community can learn from Jeannie's legacy of love and respect for all people, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnicity. While her ongoing efforts to recover from the attack were so difficult, Jeannie remained an icon of the fight for equality. Esquire Magazine recognized her in 1998 as one of the ``New American Heroes'' for standing up for a man she had never met before. In 1999 she received the prestigious Hubert H. Humphrey Award from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for exemplifying Humphrey's legacy of selflessness and devoted service for equality. The men involved in wounding her so deeply, both physically and emotionally, are now behind bars, but that does not mean the fight for justice is over. I urge all Denverites to follow her belief that, ``we should stick together no matter what color you are.'' For my part, I will continue to introduce and support legislation that will strengthen the regulations for purchasing assault weapons by working to close the ``gun show loop hole''. Furthermore, I will continue to work towards strengthening the penalties for hate crimes, the kind of crime that took the lives of both Jeannie Van Velkinburgh and Oumar Dia.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, as the cochair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I would like to extend my thanks and the thanks of the caucus to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for bringing this motion to recommit, and also to the gentleman from New York for managing the time on the bill, and the entire Committee on the Judiciary for their tireless work. Our view is this: Given Stenberg v. Carhart, we need to decide are we going to pass a constitutional bill or not. This motion makes it constitutional. We urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are with 2 days left before the August recess, and here is what we still have to do: Consider expulsion of only the second Member of Congress in our Nation's history, have nine appropriation bills left to pass, establishing a Department of Homeland Security so we can protect our country against terrorism, and dealing with the financial crisis our country is facing. Instead, what are we doing? The Republican leadership has scheduled 2 hours of debate on so-called partial-birth abortion. What is going on? Well, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, it is an election year, and now it is time to bring up this hot button issue. But with a difference this year, with a twist, because this year the Supreme Court has held a bill almost identical to the bill up for consideration today unconstitutional. From the wild rhetoric we are hearing on the other side today, one would think that women wake up suddenly in their ninth month of pregnancy and say, ``You know, I am tired of being pregnant. I think I am going to go have a partial-birth abortion.'' This is insulting to the women of this country and to the women whose tragic stories we have heard on the House floor today. It is simply not true. This is a very rare and tragic procedure which happens only under the most difficult of circumstances and which the U.S. Congress should not be legislating, but which a woman and her family and her doctor should be deciding. For the woman whose health is in serious danger, being able to make the most medically sound decision is vital. These are tragic moments in people's lives, as we have been hearing today, and we should not be interfering in that. The gentleman from Virginia and others said this bill is just simply about outlawing one medical procedure. Well, that may be true, but Congress would not think about getting involved in medical procedures of any other kind. It is really appalling to me, because this is an issue where politicians for electoral gain try to dictate a woman's actions, impugn her motives, question her morality and ultimately remove her authority to make a decision about her own body, and that is what we are debating on the floor today. But there are two things different, as I said. The first one is the Supreme Court overturned the Nebraska case on the grounds that you have to have a health exception for the woman. Guess what? This bill has no health exception. There is no health exception whatsoever. If this bill were passed into law, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. This is a fact. Let me say it again: If this bill were passed into law, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Why on Earth would we pass a bill we know for a fact is unconstitutional? Secondly, while the bill purports to ban only a certain procedure, in fact the actual language is much broader and could be used to ban many other kinds of abortion. To be honest, that is the true ultimate goal of the proponents of the bill. So I say vote yes on the motion to recommit, which will add a health exception, and vote no on final passage.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate National Jewish Medical and Research Center on being named ``U.S. News and World Report's'' best respiratory hospital in the nation for the fifth consecutive year in its annual survey of ``America's Best Hospitals.'' National Jewish was selected by board-certified pulmonologists, as well as by the numbers--mortality rates, ratio of registered nurses to beds, technology, and other factors culled from the annual survey of hospitals by the American Hospital Association. In short, this is an honor bestowed upon National Jewish by its peers. National Jewish is located in the heart of my congressional district of Denver, Colorado. Founded in 1899, this nonprofit and nonsectarian institution is dedicated to enhancing prevention, treatment and cures through research, and to developing and providing innovative clinical programs for treating patients regardless of age, religion, race or ability to pay. I am pleased and proud that the only medical and research center in the United States devoted entirely to respiratory, allergic and immune system diseases is a stellar institution and is in my congressional district.

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 community leader for her exceptional record of civic leadership and invaluable service. It is to commend this outstanding citizen that I rise to honor Rufina A. Hernandez, Esq. Ms. Hernandez has amassed a distinguished record of leadership and service to our community. She received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of New Mexico and her Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Hernandez practiced law for eight years at the Legal Aid Society of Denver specializing in Family Law, Public Utility Regulation and Consumer Protection. She served as the Executive Director of the State Bar of New Mexico and was previously the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs at the University of Denver College of Law. Presently, Ms. Hernandez is the Executive Director of the Latin American Research and Service Agency (LARASA), a preeminent community based non-profit organization dedicated to improving the health, education and self sufficiency of Colorado's Latino community. Under her leadership, LARASA has made a tremendous impact on our city and state by increasing awareness about issues affecting the Latino community and developing effective public policies and programs to address those issues. Ms. Hernandez has been a powerful advocate for change. Through her leadership, LARASA continues to bring tangible benefits to our community through the Center for Community and Behavioral Health, Centro de la Familia--the Latino Public Policy Center, the Data Resource Center and through the Proyecto Educar and Amigos de la Communidad programs that increase cultural competency and Latino involvement in our schools. Ms. Hernandez serves on the National Center for Law and Education Board of Directors, the Women's Lobby Board, the Colorado Association of Non Profit Organizations, the Child Health Advocates Board of Directors and the Governor's Utility Consumer Advisory Board. She co- chairs the Latino Jewish Coalition and the Latino Campaign for Education and also serves on the Mayor's Latino Advisory Council. It comes as no surprise that Ms. Hernandez' commitment and service has earned her several awards including the American Jewish Committee Professional Award, the National Council of LARASA Special Advocacy Award, the American Jurisprudence Award for Academic Achievement, and the University of Denver Outstanding Staff Award. While we are saddened that Ms. Hernandez will be leaving our community for a position with the National Education Association, I am confident that her leadership, skill and experience will be of great benefit to the cause of public education in our country. Please join me in commending Rufina Herandez, Esq. 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, I rise in opposition to this rule on behalf of the senior women in my district and around this country who live longer than men and pay far more money for prescription drugs.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, with this bill Congress should be keeping a solemn promise to our seniors. But what the Republicans are doing is giving simply a fig leaf instead. This proposal covers only about 20 percent of the expenses that seniors will incur for prescription drugs in the next 10 years. Well, the Republicans say we are operating under budget constraints. We cannot afford to pay the 80 percent of the costs that the Democratic alternative would have offered had we been able to offer it. Why? Why do we have these budget constraints? Because their priority is not to give relief to the 40 million Americans who need the relief but to give it to the 500,000 of the very wealthiest Americans who want estate tax relief. Take a look at this chart. Here is the number of seniors who need this prescription drug plan and need a thorough plan, 35 million. Here is the number of people who will benefit from the Republican estate tax cut that they passed a few weeks ago and that caused the budget constraints which are preventing us from passing a real benefit. The seniors of America need to know this is why we cannot give grandma and grandpa their drugs. It is not because God came down and gave us these constraints. It is because the Republican caucus gave them to us. Let me answer one more thing. Mr. Strickland says that grandma and grandpa will not be able to buy their burial plots because of the assets test. That is under Medicare. That cannot be waived under title 18 by the State. It is nonwaivable.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for this wonderful concurrent resolution. As cochair of the Diabetes Caucus and the mother of an eight-year-old child with Type I diabetes, I rise in support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak today about diabetes and the need to continue to fund research at a high level as this topic holds a great personal value to me. Over one million people are juvenile diabetics. That number is increasing every day as 13,000 children a year--35 each day--are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes and 17,000 adults a year--46 each day--are diagnosed with juvenile diabetics. Last June I was pleased to serve as Honorary Co-Chair of the 2001 Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Children's Congress, during which 200 children with juvenile diabetes came to Washington to advocate for juvenile diabetes research. While in Washington these children asked for our help to ensure that they will soon be free from the burden of finger pricks, insulin injections, hypoglycemia and the fear of complications such as nerve damage, heart attack, blindness and amputation. There is great reason to believe that this hope will be realized. Researchers are closing in on a cure for this disease. As many of you are aware, clinical trials are underway involving the transplantation of insulin producing cells into individuals with juvenile diabetes. 80% of the patients who have received these transplants have been cured of juvenile diabetes and no longer need insulin injections. However, there are two obstacles to this research. The first is that the recipients of the transplanted insulin- producing cells must undergo immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection of the cells. This problem is being addressed by the research of the NIH-funded Immune Tolerance Network, the goal of which is to develop a way to transplant organs and tissue, including islet cells, without subjecting the recipients to a lifetime of immunosuppressive therapy. The progress of this research would not only help children with juvenile diabetes, but also patients with a wide variety of autoimmune diseases and disorders, such as Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Multiple Sclerosis. The second obstacle is of greater concern to researchers. There is a serious shortage of cadaver pancreases from which the insulin producing cells must be derived for transplant. Less than 2000 pancreases are available each year for both whole organ transplants and the derivation of insulin producing cells for the experimental trails. Therefore, if and when these transplants are ready to be applied to everyone who suffers from juvenile diabetes, only a very small fraction will benefit. Researchers are currently looking for alternate supplies of insulin producing cells. One of the most promising potential sources is embryonic stem cells. Researchers are demonstrating that embryonic stem cells can be turned into insulin producing cells, which could lead to a virtually unlimited supply for transplant into all patients with juvenile diabetes. All Americans suffering from diabetes are in a race against time. Their future could hold deadly complications such as kidney failure, blindness, nerve, amputation and stroke. We owe it to those 17 million Americans--1 million, which are juvenile diabetics--to ensure that all promising avenues of diabetes research, are pursued with adequate resources.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am frankly saddened by the tone of this debate. The Republicans say that they are in charge here. They have the majority and they have a duty to pass the military supplemental to continue the war efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We agree, we do have a responsibility to pass the supplemental; and the thing I am sad about is the majority knows we agree with it. We know we have to pass this supplemental, but what we object to is all of the other things that are tacked onto it because the majority does not have the courage to deal with them head-on, independently. As the majority party, the Republicans also bear the responsibility for the health of our economy. And frankly, that is why the Republican majority claims that it passed last year the tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthy. Well, that is fine. They thought that would help the economy. Guess what? They thought wrong. We did have some intervening events. We had a recession. We had the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the need for relief efforts and bioterrorism efforts in this country and we have the war against terrorism. At that point, to exert leadership, what the majority party should do is say, the combination of our tax cuts for the wealthy and these crises have left us in a position where we have the largest 1-year increase in deficit spending in our Nation's history. But do they do that? No. Instead they shirk their duties of leadership, and they try to sneak language into this very important relief bill to increase the debt ceiling and to allow us to go even deeper in debt instead of working with the majority and the minority to find a way that we can readjust our budget so that we can deal with the very real economic issues. Then the majority demagogs this issue by blaming it on the minority party by saying we are unpatriotic because we object to just slipping this increase of the debt ceiling into a bill that should pass and should pass unanimously. I have got to say I, for one, am sick to death of being called unpatriotic. Is it unpatriotic to say that we should face our economic responsibilities as a Congress instead of shrinking into greater and greater debt? Is it unpatriotic to say that we should protect Social Security for the grandparents of the men and women who are fighting overseas against terrorism? I do not think so. Is it unpatriotic to want to deal with our changed economic circumstances as a result of the tax cuts, the recession and the terrorist attacks? I do not think it is unpatriotic. In fact, I think it is the height of patriotism, and that is why I object to this tactic. Here is why this is such an important issue. As I said, we just had the largest 1-year plunge in our national deficit spending. If we look at this chart, what it shows, we had some deficit spending throughout the 1970s. And when Ronald Reagan's tax cut went in in 1981, we were plunged even deeper into deficit spending which culminated in 1991. Finally, Congress had the guts to do something about it, and they passed legislation to make our economy strong. As you can see in 2000, for the first time we were actually running surpluses. But once that tax cut for the wealthy was passed, and everything else happened, this year we have been plunged into the largest deficit spending in our Nation's history. What you do not see on this chart is 2 years out. This goes through 2006. In 2008 the baby boomers will start to retire and when the baby boomers start to retire, the grandparents of our fighting men and women, we will have raided their Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and we will have an economic crisis in this country like you will not believe. So here is what I think we should do. Let us strip the provision for the debt ceiling out of this bill. Let us pass this bill immediately. Let us pass this bill right now, and then let us come back and let us sit down and have an economic summit. Let us talk about what we can do about these tax cuts for the wealthy. Let us talk about how we are going to pay for a prescription drug benefit so our seniors are not having to choose between paying rent and paying for their medicines. Let us figure out how we are going to fund our economy. In my personal household, if I went home and said to my husband, I know we have had some economic hard times lately; our roof has been leaking and the kids are sick, so I have decided to go to Saks Fifth Avenue and buy a new wardrobe, my husband would not be too happy. And the Nation should not be happy with this, with what this Congress is doing either.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the City of Glendale's 50th Anniversary. I am indeed gratified to have the privilege of representing this outstanding community in the United States Congress. The City of Glendale was incorporated on May 22, 1952 and will celebrate its 50th anniversary on May 18, 2002. The City of Glendale has grown from a rest stop and watering hole on the major stagecoach route along the Cherry Creek Trail in the 1800s, and has become a city with a rich tradition of hospitality, vitality and amenities for residents and visitors alike; and It has become a true ``urban village,'' with an ethnically diverse population of 4,527 residents whose heritage's are celebrated as part of Glendale's annual National Night Out festivities; and Glendale has also become a prominent business center, with approximately 12,000 people employed by the more than 300 businesses occupying nearly 2.2 million square feet of office space in this conveniently located community. The City of Glendale's 41-member Police Department and 29-member Fire Department safeguard the health and safety of residents, visitors and those employed in the City. Its Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining 35 acres of parks and open space, 6.9 miles of City streets, as well as 25 miles of sidewalk, 1.3 miles of trail, and two bridges spanning Cherry Creek, and operating the City's water treatment facility. Glendale also offers a variety of recreational activities in two community recreation centers and in conjunction with the Cherry Creek School Districts, sponsors a Head Start program and kindergarten enrichment program at Glendale's Agnes Riddle Education Center. The Education Center also houses a Computer Lab where residents of all ages learn the latest computer software in free classes taught in both English and Russian. The City of Glendale, in conjunction with the Cherry Creek School District, also offers a free after-school tutoring/ homework help program at the Glendale Community Center during the school year. The Glendale Public Library is well known to the Russian community throughout the metro area, for its comprehensive collection of English and Russian books, newspapers, magazines, videos and other materials, as well as English as a Second Language classes and citizenship classes. Mr. Speaker, Glendale residents continue to enjoy the benefits of being part of a vibrant. cosmopolitan community and I am pleased to have the opportunity to salute Glendale on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose authorizing Yucca Mountain as the permanent site for our Nation's nuclear waste at this point, and I will tell my colleagues why. Politics are driving this process and not science. I realize that the proponents of this site say that the nuclear industry and the Department of Energy have already studied the issue; but frankly, it is the final grade that matters, not how much we study, and at this point, Yucca Mountain still gets a failing grade for many in the scientific community. Scientists both at the GAO and elsewhere have stated, we have heard that, that there are still issues to be addressed. There are still serious issues at the site, the seismic activity and ground water migration. The studies on those issues will not be completed till 2006. That does not mean that Yucca will never achieve a passing grade. Maybe future studies will determine this is the best and only place for America's nuclear waste, but this is supposed to be the site where we put our Nation's radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years. I do not oppose Yucca Mountain as a potential site outright. I just do not think that the designation is timely. How about completing the scientific studies first? Seems like a no-brainer to me. I also, frankly, have grave concerns about transporting the waste. A few years ago in Denver, Colorado, where I-70, the major east-west highway, and I-25, the major north-south highway, intersect, a truck with a big missile on it fell over, and I shudder to think what would happen if a truck containing radioactive waste fell over in the Mouse Trap in Denver, Colorado, during rush hour. I do not care how safe people say that is. So let us make sure that we have the science. Let us make sure that we have real transportation assurances and that local governments are working with us. Let us have that in place before we do this. It only makes sense. Vote ``no'' on the Yucca Mountain resolution.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to oppose the conference report before us today. I agree that there are some excellent provisions. I support the increase in spending for conservation, as well as the country-of-origin labeling and research subsidies. I also support the restoration of food stamps for legal immigrants, and indeed, have voted numerous times during my tenure to support restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. But I cannot in good conscience vote for this bloated bill. What we hope will come out of a conference is a well-reasoned and reasonable compromise. In reality, the end result is frequently an agreement to split the difference. Today, we are presented with an even less appealing compromise--an agreement that is completely out of proportion to the requests of either the House or Senate bill. This is hugely irresponsible in a time of economic duress and budget shortfalls. It is the sins of omissions that are the downfall of this bill. I am sorely disappointed to see that the conferees chose to ignore the will of the House and of the Senate and not implement the recommended subsidy payment limitations. The result would cost this country billions of dollars while benefiting the largest corporate farms and big agro-business. This does not help the small farmer. In fact, these huge handouts would aid corporate farms in buying out the small farmers the bill purports to protect. And there are other glaring omissions. Gone are the provisions that would improve animal welfare. Many important conservation measures have been gutted. As a percentage of the total, the conservation portion is actually less than it was in the 1990 Farm Bill. For these reasons, I oppose this conference report. The bill represents a missed opportunity and it is a failure.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that many years ago in the now receding past, I was privileged to be the sponsor in the Colorado legislature of one of the first omnibus domestic violence bills in the country, and in fact that bill was passed in 1995 in Colorado. The thing we learned at that time was that one of the biggest barriers to preventing and stopping domestic violence is a lack of awareness by everybody around the country. This is a problem that is faced nationwide, which is why Congress passed the Violence against Women Act and why the Violence Against Women Office was set up in 1995. However, if we are going to have a strong and effective Violence Against Women Office, it must be permanent, it must be independent, and it must be prepared to do much more than just simply administer grants. It needs to do outreach and education, and it needs to have the kind of stature within the Justice Department on a continuing basis that it did when it was once instituted. So, for those reasons, it is essential that we pass this motion to instruct and that we instruct the conferees both to adopt the Senate provisions that establish the office and also the House provisions that delineate the duties of the office.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has done so much on this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and congratulate her for all of her many years of fine work on this issue.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion before us now would instruct conferees to the U.S. Department of Justice authorization bill to agree on the Senate provisions to make the Violence Against Women Office independent within the Justice Department, and also the House language that provides a clearly defined list of important duties and authority that VAWO should have. The combination of these provisions will effectively strengthen the Violence Against Women Act so that it can carry out its mission. Before I discuss the reasons why this is so important, I would like to begin by recognizing two Members who have been integral to this issue. The first one, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), has worked on this bill and this issue for quite some time, both as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and as a member of the conference committee to H.R. 2215. Working to protect women from domestic violence has always been a high priority for her and her work to protect the integrity of the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice has been invaluable. I would also like to recognize the work of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has always been a champion in the fight against domestic violence throughout her distinguished tenure in Congress. As one of the original sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act, she was integral to its passage. The gentlewoman continues to be a leader who we all look to on the issues and many other issues as well. I want to thank these esteemed Members for their leadership and say what an honor it has been to work with them on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice was created in 1995 to implement the programs created under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The creation of this office was critical to transforming the work done in the States to address the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The establishment of this office meant that for the very first time there was a strong showing of leadership from the Federal Government on the issue of domestic violence. This leadership has lent guidance and support to all the different entities at the State level to work to reduce the incidence and lessen the impact of violence against women. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, the courts, and victim service organizations have all been assisted by the guidance given by the Violence Against Women Office. That office has served as a powerful voice within the administration, ensuring that keeping women and children safe from abuse is a top priority of the Federal Government. The office also administers grants to States, tribal communities, local communities, and domestic violence and sexual assault providers to assist with improving the methods in which the criminal and civil justice systems respond to violent actions against women. How has the office improved the way we deal with domestic violence? I would just like to describe a few ways in which the office has been transformative on the issue. The Violence Against Women Office has worked with U.S. Attorneys to ensure enforcement of the Federal criminal statutes contained in the Violence Against Women Act and assisted the Attorney General in formulating policy relating to civil and criminal justice for women. The office also works closely with State and local organizations, with the understanding that ending violent crimes against women and children requires coordinated community-based responses. It administers over $270 million in grants each year to assist States and tribes to deal with the problem of domestic violence. The office also ensures the appropriate training of judges and other law enforcement personnel. The Department of Justice Health and Human Services National Council on Violence Against Women, staffed by the Violence Against Women Office, has raised awareness in this country about the nature and harmful effects of domestic violence and, as a result, there is a great deal more awareness of domestic violence and its effect among the general public. These are just a few of the myriad ways in which the Violence Against Women Office has provided leadership. So what exactly is the problem we are here to address? Unfortunately, the Violence Against Women Office has never been instituted under Federal statute, and much of its power has been undermined, thereby reducing its effectiveness. Because this office was never instituted under a Federal statute, it is vulnerable to being stripped of its power. And, indeed, that is exactly what has been happening lately. In fact, there is nothing to prevent this administration or any other administration from summarily shutting the office down completely. Right now, the office is in a location well outside the main Department of Justice building, and its director, who used to have a seat at daily meetings of executive leadership with the Attorney General, now has very limited access to the power structure within the agency. Just a few months ago, in fact, the policy office was effectively shut down. This completely undermines it and hobbles the office's ability to retain its status both as a national resource and an international leader on the issue of domestic violence. Currently, the Justice Department is engaged in reorganizing internal offices that distribute grant funding, including the Violence Against Women Office. These plans, unfortunately, include reducing the already understaffed office as well as consolidating its funding goals with other unrelated grant programs. This again will only serve to further undercut the effectiveness of the office. Now, the good news is that both the Senate and the House DOJ authorization bills take important steps to remedy this situation. What we need to do now is to combine the best provisions of both bills to protect this office from any further erosion of its status and ability. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills would statutorily institute the Violence Against Women Office, which is a very important step. However, we need to make sure that the differences between the two bills are resolved in such a manner that it will guarantee the effectiveness of the office. The Senate language creates an independent office within the Department of Justice, giving it a high profile and guaranteeing the ability of the office to formulate policy and to assist the other governmental agencies in their work on violence against women. This, combined with the House language, listing its duties and authorities, will restore the Violence Against Women Office to its former position as a national leader, and an agent for change on the issue of combating domestic violence around the country. The Federal Government should not forfeit our leadership on such an important issue. We owe it to the women and children in this country who have been affected by the scourge of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to vote for my motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2215.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2215 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2215 be instructed to: 1, agree to title IV of the Senate amendment (establishing a Violence Against Women Office); and 2, insist upon section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by section 402 of the House bill (establishing duties and functions of the Director of the Violence Against Women Office).