Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of restoring food stamp benefits to legal immigrants, recently arrived children, the disabled and refugees. This is the right thing to do, it is the decent thing to do and I urge my colleagues to act today to accomplish this. Legal Permanent Residents pay taxes and their labor helps to drive our economy. Food stamps can provide these needy families with a temporary safety net during difficult times. Food stamps provide a crucial safety net that allows working men and women to feed their families during hard times. Hunger does not limit itself to American citizenship; therefore, we should not create a policy to systematically deny food assistance to needy immigrants in this country. Immigrants come to this country to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their family. Cutting off needed benefits to those who legally reside in this country is both unnecessary and cruel. I have both co-sponsored and voted for legislation to restore the benefits to legal immigrants since I was first elected to Congress. Most of the legal immigrants in this country are employed. These workers, like all other residents, pay taxes. In many cases, they are the fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers of American citizens. Their labor helps to drive our economy and they deserve help when they need it. Immigrant workers can also be the most vulnerable during an economic downturn. Prior to September 11th, the Hispanic unemployment rate was rising faster than the national average. The terrorist attacks and subsequent economic impact only worsened the situation for Latinos in this country. Food stamps are not a permanent fix; they are a temporary means to provide the neediest people the most basic resource to survive. I will continue to fight for equal rights and just treatment for immigrants throughout my tenure in Congress.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and contributions of Byron ``Whizzer'' White, one of Colorado's most renowned and admirable native sons. Retired Supreme Court Justice White died on Monday, April 15, at the age of 84, of complications with pneumonia. We have not only lost this honorable and esteemed man, we have also lost the last living former Supreme Court Justice. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his dedication to our country and his remarkable achievements before this body of Congress and this nation. White was born in Fort Collins, Colorado in 1917, raised in the nearby town of Wellington. White excelled at every aspiration and accomplished everything he attempted. Valedictorian of his high school and University of Colorado class, White continued to become a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford university. He completed his legal studies at Yale Law School after serving our country in World War II. ``Whizzer'' White was also a legendary All-America football player at University of Colorado and played for the NFL with the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Detroit Lions. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed White to the Supreme Court of the United States. The new justice joined the Court just as it neared the height of its liberal and activist period. White quickly evolved into a conservative jurist with a strong independent streak, dissenting from many of the court's liberal rulings of the 1960's. Yet he was a strong proponent of civil rights for racial minorities. In 1961, White served to protect the ``Freedom Riders'', the young civil- rights activists trying to integrate the interstate bus system over the objection of Alabama's all-white power structure. White served a remarkable 31 years on the Supreme Court as a loyal and devoted Democrat before retiring in 1993. Mr. Speaker, Byron R. White was a distinguished jurist who served his country with the utmost honor and dedication. The ``Whizzer'' remains a celebrated figure and a Colorado native son we are very proud to claim as one of our own. His exceptional brains, athleticism, and esteemed character and devotion to justice will continue to live on through the lives of those he has touched. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to White's family and friends during this difficult time of remembrance and bereavement.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Local #208 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, located in Denver, Colorado. From their formation on April 26, 1902, Local #208 has a history full of challenge, perseverance, loyalty, and ingenuity. Before the creation of Local #208, conditions for pipefitters based in Denver were generally poor. Employment was not steady and jobs were scattered across the nation, forcing pipefitters to constantly move. However, with the increase in indoor plumbing and construction, pipefitters soon found employment in hospitals, schools, and water systems, among others. As the number of jobs grew, so did the need for a union to protect the interests of the workers in the pipefitting industry. The national union was founded on October 7, 1889 and two of the first elected officers were from Denver. On April 26, 2002, the Pipefitters Local #208 will have existed for 100 years. This is truly an achievement. From their beginnings in 1902, the Local has contributed to the welfare of their members, as well as the pipefitting industry. The loyalty of Local #208 to its members was demonstrated numerous times when it came to the aid of financially distressed pipefitters in Denver and across Colorado. In fact, the Local provided interest free loans to its members who were experiencing difficult times. Local #208 also gave back to Denver and its budding pipefitters. Local #208 coordinated with other locals in the region to advocate for stronger worker protections, improvements in health and safety, and contract agreements. Additionally, the Local created a Joint Apprenticeship Committee that provides training and accreditation of new pipefitters. In the last 25 years, Local #208 has successfully fought for better wages and working conditions of its membership and has helped to make Denver the great city it is today. Members of Local #208 have contributed to the construction of such Denver institutions as the home of the Denver Broncos, the Denver Public Library, the Denver International Airport, and the home of the Colorado Rockies. Over 100 years, Local #208 has thrived through perseverance, loyalty, and creativity. These are the characteristics that will allow Local #208 to last for another 100 years. I am proud to congratulate Local #208 on their first 100 years and wish them all the best in the future.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional because it would restrict the movements of citizens across State lines for legal purposes. And I guess the previous speaker said our Constitution says all ``men'' are created; some Members do not think that young women should have those same rights. I think this bill would be struck down by a court for that reason. But equally importantly and to the underlying bill, it is terrible public policy; and it is an ineffective attempt by Congress to control people's lives. Every parent in this Chamber feels the same way about his or her children. I also have two daughters. One of them is 12 years old, about to be going through the morass of middle school and high school. I love my children unconditionally, just like every other parent in this country; and when it comes to making big decisions, I would hope my children would come to me. I think that they would come to me. But sadly, this is not true for every young adult across this country. For myriad reasons, thousands of adolescents and young adults do not feel that they can turn to their parents with problems like an unplanned pregnancy. Victims of incest, victims of rape, child abuse victims, they have good reasons why they cannot go to a parent. Of course we should encourage teenagers to seek their parents' advice and counsel when facing difficult choices about abortion and other reproductive health issues. But folks, there is a reality in this country, and that reality is sometimes there are desperate kids who we need to help from making a bad situation even worse. The government cannot mandate open and healthy family communication if it does not exist, and the fact of the matter is most young women considering an abortion do involve one or both parents. Let me say it again. Most young women in this country involve one or both parents when making this decision. But not everybody talks to their parents because not everybody can. It is these young women who most need the advice of a trusted family friend, a minister, a sympathetic grandmother. When a young woman cannot involve a parent, public policies and medical professionals should encourage her to involve a trusted adult because the result of laws like this will be deaths from illegal abortions and unsafe abortions, and that is wrong. Most major medical associations including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association all have long-standing policies opposing mandatory parental involvement laws for this reason. Because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society for Adolescent Medicine oppose this bill. We should, too. Oppose the rule. Oppose the bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a few minutes to address a couple of issues that are critical to this debate. The district I represent, the Denver metro area, has become one of the latest telecommunications hubs in the country, and I want to talk about the sort of competition that exists back home, which is due in large part to the Telecom Act of '96. We have an enormous number of telecommunications companies out in Colorado, from cable companies, those who provide DSL, satellite companies, a vast array of Competitive Local Exchange Company's (CLECs). So we have a pretty good representation of the sort of services that are available, and we also have some of the problems that exist across the country, like a lack of services in the more rural areas of the state, and a dearth of competition for local phone service. Clearly the goal of any telecommunications legislation should be to accelerate the deployment of broadband services to all consumers. As policymakers, we are charged with doing our part to facilitate the most competitive marketplaces that in turn provide the best services and prices available. We need to do so in a way that is technology and industry neutral. I deeply fear that this bill will not only not accomplish this, but will actually benefit certain sectors of the industry and seriously harm others. This bill will result in the sluggish development and deployment of future advanced technologies. For example, the CLECs in my district, which have been heavily hit by the recent bumps in the economy, would be in serious trouble if this bill passed. This is not only because of the policy changes mandated by this bill, the details of which we will undoubtedly discuss ad nauseum in the next couple of hours, but also because the capital that has allowed these companies to build up their networks will simply disappear. I do not think this bill is necessary, and I will use the example of Qwest, located in my district to illustrate this. Qwest is currently in the process of getting back into long distance service after its merge with US West. It will file its first state application this summer and then file for its remaining thirteen states so it can obtain long distance authority for its entire region before the end of the year. I am quite optimistic that they will be successful in complying with the checklist, whether or not this bill passes, and move on to provide my constituents, along with the rest of consumers in their region, great service. The most diverse array of technologies and services is what will best serve consumers, and I do not think H.R. 1542 will facilitate competition or an even-handed promotion of wide-ranging technologies that exist or are currently developing. Why now are we now poised to undercut legislation that has brought the marketplace so far along over the past few years? This is not to say that everything has worked out exactly as envisioned, but the '96 Act accomplished some very important goals, and the fact is that things are still shaking out. I have grave concerns that enactment of H.R. 1542 may adversely impact competition for local telephone service. As currently drafted, the legislation puts at risk the line-sharing requirements that allow competitors into the local exchange market. Absent these requirements it is unlikely that a truly competitive marketplace will continue to develop. Rather we would likely see market consolidation and the attendant increased rates. In my final analysis of this issue, I have concluded there is nothing in the 1996 Act that prohibits the RBOCs from providing broadband services to the customers that they now serve. In fact, they are doing so today, competing with other providers and satisfying customers the needs of consumers for high-speed Internet access. The bottom line is that competition is the best incentive for broadband deployment. DSL and other technologies have been around for years. The local exchanges really only began stepping up their roll- outs and lowering their prices in response to the emerging competition from the CLECs, cable companies, wireless and satellite providers. It cannot be said enough, and indeed, I don't think it has been said enough that we are obligated to pass, or not pass, a legislation that will most benefit consumers. Not bills that will only help certain companies, or particular technologies, but that will, as I said before, create the most diverse and competitive marketplace for our constituents.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as presented by my distinguished colleagues Mr. Meehan and Mr. Shays. This bill represents a watershed in our democracy. Today, we can remove from campaigns the shadow of special interests and move toward an electoral system in which every American will have an equal voice in our democratic process. For too long, our nation's campaigns have been tainted by soft money sleight-of-hand, campaigns in which large amounts of money are solicited from a few contributors and mysteriously distributed. For too long, we have winked as soft money came in by the truckload for ``party-enhancing activities'' when it was common knowledge that it really was used for ``issue ads'' that came uncomfortably close to supporting candidates. Many took advantage of the soft money loophole to gain inordinate access to our country's leaders and lowered our nation's political parties to little more than middlemen for moving soft money for corporations and wealthy individuals. In the past few weeks, in my capacity on the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have had the opportunity to observe how some corporations have attempted to escape scrutiny in part by taking advantage of the loopholes in our campaign system. I have seen how the company's dealings have raised questions in the minds of Americans about how soft money can be used to gain access, influence, and power. Our democracy cannot operate at its best without openness. This legislation will shine light onto the campaign finance process, bringing disclosure, structure, and accountability. This legislation disarms both political parties, limiting soft money from both corporations and unions. It increases the amount of hard money that can be contributed and allows adequate funds for our state parties to conduct vital get out the vote activities. I would like to commend my colleagues for their persistence and perseverance in their effort to get their bill passed. They have compromised on important measures in order to gain bi-partisan support. Their efforts to move this legislation forward are a tribute to those who have fought and died for a free and just nation, to those who have struggled for an open and honest political system. I urge my colleagues to not let this moment pass us by, to vote for the Shays/Meehan bill and for a reformed campaign finance system that will clean up our campaigns and give our political process back to the people.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year a young man in Colorado was brutally beaten and left for dead in southwestern Colorado because he was transgendered and openly gay. His attacker left him in the cold night to die alone, and his body was later found in the advanced stages of decomposition with a broken skull and a slash on his abdomen. Despite the fact that the attacker later bragged about ``killing a fag,'' the crime has yet to be declared a hate crime, and local prosecutors are without resources to fully investigate the crime. That is why I rise today to call upon the House to pass H.R. 1343, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill would provide Federal financial and technical assistance to State and local governments to prosecute these horrifying hate crimes and would allow the Federal Government to prosecute crimes where State or local authorities refuse to act. Congress must pass H.R. 1343 to bring justice for this young man's death and the many hate crimes throughout America.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2887, the ``Best Pharmaceuticals Act for Children.'' Passage of this bill will continue to enhance our understanding of which medications are safe and efficacious for children by reauthorizing the pediatric exclusivity program. I thank Chairman Tauzin and Mr. Greenwood for including two of my provisions in this bill. Their inclusion will help to ensure that the program works for all children. These provisions will aid in increasing the representation of ethnic and racial minority children in clinical trials covered under the Act. It certainly has the potential of impacting the families of half my constituents--49.5 percent of who are ethnic or racial minorities. My provisions require General Accounting Office to conduct a study to examine the extent to which minority children are adequately represented in studies covered by Act. The study will also explore whether drugs used to treat diseases that disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities are being studied for their safety and efficacy. This line of inquiry is key as myriad diseases including diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, and others disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, we must ensure that medications used to treat these ailments are studied. Additionally, the bill permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take into account the presence of adequate representation of ethnic and racial minority children when negotiating written protocols with clinical sponsors. This additional language highlights the need to include this population among study participants. Mr. Speaker, both additions to the bill help to ensure that all children, white, black, and brown receive the best health care possible. The demographic changes that are anticipated over the next decade magnify the importance of this issue. While I am in support of this measure, I am concerned that its placement on the suspension calendar precludes Members who have concerns about the bill from bringing their issues and proposed solutions to the House floor for consideration by all Members. I hope their issues are addressed as we work out the differences between the Senate and House passed versions.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to vehemently oppose H.R. 3081, the Anti-Terrorism bill. In this time of national emergency, Congress must work to provide law enforcement with the necessary capabilities to fight terrorists in the 21st century. However, Congress must also remember that we are dealing with very precious civil liberties that we must not trample. Today, Congress is considering greatly expanding the power of the federal government to access information and listen to the conversations of people in the United States. We are considering providing greater authority for law enforcement to tap phone lines, to track email and internet addresses, and to swap sensitive information. Issues with this magnitude require cautious consideration with ample time to ponder the consequences. After careful deliberation, House Judiciary Committee on October 11, 2001 passed H.R. 2975, the ``Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Implement and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act.'' In fact, the committee recognized the importance of the subject matter and the potential consequences of the bill and passed H.R. 2975 unanimously. This bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee and members of the full House. However, in an end run around bipartisanship and the committee process, the House majority leadership brought a different and controversial bill to the floor without allowing time for committee consideration and without even giving Members time to figure out what the bill does. Actually, this new bill was being written at the same time that the House was supposed to be debating the bipartisan PATRIOT Act. The new 187-page bill contained some very distressing provisions. Under current law, search warrants must include very specific information including what is to be searched, who must cooperate, and who is the target of the search. A provision in the new bill would allow federal investigators to obtain search warrants without specifically naming each person who is involved. Another provision would allow federal authorities to obtain information like credit card numbers and bank account numbers with a subpoena, not a court order, as is the case under current law. Also, many of the provisions that expand the government's search and surveillance powers would not allow Congress to review the new powers until 2006. Yet, instead of bringing up a bipartisan bill that has worked its way through the committee process, the House Majority hastily brought a very large and complicated bill to the floor that could have serious consequences for the liberties of the American public. Congress must update its anti-terrorism laws for the 21st century, however, we must not sacrifice our civil liberties in a rush to vote on potentially dangerous legislation that has not been adequately reviewed by lawmakers.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I rise today to give my qualified support to H.R. 2586, the 2002 Defense Authorization Act and to explain the reasoning behind my vote. Although I support a strong and effective national defense, I have opposed Defense authorization and appropriations bills in the past. Many of the funds included in past bills would have gone to purchase weapon systems and other items that the Pentagon did not request and whose efficacy was questionable. I voted against past bills because I believe Congress must more effectively target scarce resources to all our national priorities. However, one of the reasons that I am supportive of this legislation today is the fact that we are heading into a potentially protracted and difficult military conflict and it is important that our nation's armed services have necessary and appropriate resources available to them quickly. Additionally, I voted for H.R. 2586 with the understanding that certain controversial and questionable provisions of the bill will be worked out in conference with the Senate. The Defense Authorization bill contains provisions that will provide increased benefits to the men and women of our armed forces, including retirees, and their families. The bill will include the largest increase in pay for members of our nation's military in 19 years. Additionally, this pay raise will be targeted to provide lower-paid enlistees with greater benefits. With housing prices rising across the country, lower-paid members of our voluntary military forces sometimes struggle to pay their housing costs. The Defense Authorization bill would effectively reduce the current out-of-pocket housing costs for servicemembers from 15 percent to 11.3 percent by next year, and would seek to completely eliminate the out-of-pocket housing expenses by 2005. The 2002 Defense Authorization bill would also provide $17.6 billion for defense healthcare including funding for promised care under TRICARE for Medicare-eligible military retirees. The bill also includes important environmental cleanup provisions and assistance to foreign nations for humanitarian efforts. The bill would provide $3 billion for the Energy Department to clean facilities with extensive and severe environmental damage before those facilities close. Funding for the development of new technologies to clean the environment is also included in the bill. Despite these important provisions, I have grave concerns with certain provisions in the bill that I believe could harm our nation's relations with key allies. This bill includes $8.2 billion for missile defense, which is 55 percent more than the current funding level. It also includes authorization to construct a test bed for a national missile defense system in Alaska. This test bed could violate the AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which has been the cornerstone of international arms control for nearly 30 years. The proposed national missile defense system has only been tested in ways that can be described as artificial, and a majority of those tests have failed. In fact, a panel of Defense Department experts cautioned that Congress's rush to install a national missile defense was a ``rush to failure.'' Congress's misguided insistence on developing a missile defense shield and its apparent willingness to abrogate the ABM treaty will seriously injure America's relations with its foreign allies. Our European allies--Britain, France and others--have expressed reservations about America's unilateral approach toward national missile defense. Additionally, Congress's insistence on a national missile defense that violates the ABM treaty could incite another arms race. Already, China has warned that it would acquire as many ballistic missiles with as many warheads as possible if the United States unilaterally deploys a missile defense. While I strongly oppose provisions in the bill that would violate the ABM treaty by pushing forward with the development of a missile shield, I voted for the Defense Authorization bill with the understanding that both Republicans and Democrats will work together to come to an agreement on these contentious provisions. The Senate has already indicated its intention to cut $1 billion from the funding contained in the bill for missile defense and it intends to consider a separate bill at a later date that will ensure Congress's authority to oversee any missile tests that could violate the ABM treaty.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Yesterday's act of war will go down in history as an act that forever changed America. Not since Pearl Harbor has our country faced such a horror. But this attack took aim at innocent people who when they kissed their families goodbye in the morning merely were going to work. And yesterday's attackers, rather than an identifiable enemy, were anonymous extremists, a faceless lot who don't even have the courage to come out of the dark to claim their despicable handiwork. What is the same today as it in 1941, is the will and the strength of America. We may be bloodied, but we are unbowed. We must respond, as we did at that critical juncture, with determination, courage and unity. We must understand that the war we must wage against barbarism is more complex than the wars we have fought in the past, but like those wars will not be won with a single military strike. It will take wisdom and patience. Our challenge is to strengthen our defenses so that we will never again have to see scenes like we witnessed yesterday and to increase our intelligence gathering capabilities while at the same time maintaining our core American values. It would serve only the ends of the extremists if we were to trample the Bill of Rights in response to this crisis. I have been heartened by the response of the American people. Ordinary citizens became extraordinary orators in responding to these barbarous attacks. I hope that the people responsible for yesterday's atrocities have been watching, because if they have been they now know that they have done nothing but firm our resolve. They are no closer to touching the foundations of the United States than they were before this heinous attack. We are stronger today that we were yesterday. We must ferret out these monsters and bring them to justice. We owe it to the children who lost their parents and the parents who lost their children yesterday. We must hold accountable those institutions and groups that have supported them in their madness. We must hold the line against hatred. We must stand up for humanity, for civilized society. We must stand against the tyranny of extremism. And I know we will. As President Franklin Roosevelt said in his speech following the attack on Pearl harbor: ``We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, this bill will have completed its transformation from the Patients' Bill of Rights, to the providers' bill of rights. Make no mistake about it, under the Norwood amendment which just passed, patients will never be able to hold HMOs legally accountable because of an unreasonable burden of proof. If this amendment is passed, patients will now not be adequately compensated for their damages that they incur as a result of malpractice by doctors or any other providers. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), says incorrectly that the bill provides unlimited economic damages. But he knows as well as everybody else here that State statutes limit economic damages to actual money paid out of pocket. So if there is someone who has medical bills of $2,000 and they have noneconomic damages of $1 million, too bad. They are out of court. The only noneconomic damages they can get would be $4,000 under this amendment. Now where will this apply? In some of the most tragic situations, loss of a limb or sight, the loss of mobility, the loss of fertility, excruciating pain and permanent and severe disfigurement, also, the loss of a child or a spouse. There are a number of other damages that are limited. Do not take this out on the patients. Vote no on this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is faced with one of the most complex and potentially far-reaching medical and ethical issues it will ever face. As a body, we should have time to examine the ramifications of the many issues involved in cloning, time for deliberative judgment, time for exploring alternatives and crafting enforceable legislation. But today, we are not being given that time, and that is why we must reject this rule. We are being given less than 3 hours today when most Members have not had the time to understand and explore the potent ramifications of this issue to decide an issue which will not only impact tens of millions of Americans today, but will also impact future generations. Cloning is one of the most important and far-reaching issues we will examine in our public service. Its impact may be incalculable. Cloning will alter our world. It is true that powerful, potent and perhaps dangerous research efforts currently proceed unchecked. Technological knowledge grows exponentially with new and important results announced daily. The rush of data creates a surging, uncontrolled current that finds its own course. We must not legislate long after the damage has been done, and that is why we need to try to find a way to have foresight and vision, providing leadership for others around the world. We must find a way to ban human cloning, while allowing research to continue. Therefore, I support the revised Greenwood-Deutsch substitute which bans reproductive cloning, but allows strictly regulated, privately funded therapeutic cloning. Reproductive cloning practices which must be banned are an attempt to create a new human being and, as we heard in hearings throughout the spring, there are fringe groups who would like to clone humans. This is wrong, and it must be stopped. Conversely, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or so-called ``therapeutic cloning,'' is the way to take stem cell research and all of its promise from the lab to the patient who has diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, and other health problems. Stem cell research helps us take a stem cell, a cell that is a building block to be made into any other cell, and turn that cell into a variety of different tissues for the body. But medical experts tell us that that stem cell, because the DNA differs from the DNA of the individual that the new tissue is to be donated to, will often be rejected, because the genetic makeup of that tissue is different. Somatic cell nuclear transfer gets around that problem of rejection, because the stem cells that create the organ or tissue are from the patient. As a result, the patient's body will not recognize the organ or tissue as a foreign object. Let me give my colleagues an example. A diabetic, if we take a cell and we make a stem cell and then we make an Islet cell that produces insulin from that stem cell, the person's body will still reject that Islet cell without immunosuppressive drugs because the DNA is different. But with somatic stem cell transfer, if we take an egg, an unfertilized human egg, we remove the 23 chromosomes and we take the diabetic patient and replace the 23 chromosomes with 46 of that own patient's chromosomes, we can make Islet cells that that person's body will not reject. The other thing, the very dangerous thing the Weldon bill does is, if there are nonhuman cloning techniques which are used for therapies abroad, we can never import those therapies, to have to say to someone who needs a skin graft that a therapy developed overseas cannot be used to replace one's own healthy skin. The ancient Greeks developed mythological answers for questions they did not understand. Their mythology brought order into chaos. We do not have that luxury in our society. We cannot stand back, shrug our shoulders and say, it is the will of the gods. Cloning is man's discovery and man has to take control over cloning and all of its consequences, good and bad. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this rule, and I also urge adoption of the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute. Let us have a debate. Let us have a full discussion, and let us figure this out in a way all of us can be proud of in a reasonable, not a political way.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 7, the ``Charitable Choice Act of 2001'' because it is a fundamentally-flawed bill that would put in jeopardy one of the bedrock principles of the United States--the separation of church and state. Many religious organizations receive government funds to provide certain services under a carefully crafted and judicially-tested model and I believe these organizations have an important place in the social safety net. However, I have serious concerns about this ``Charitable Choice'' bill because it significantly deviates from the current system and permits religious organizations receiving federal funds to evade the Civil Rights Act and engage in employment discrimination based on religion. Also, it contains a major loophole that blurs the line between direct and indirect assistance to religious organizations and endangers important protections against governmental funding of religious organizations. Religious organizations have been permitted to receive federal funds for social services since 1996 when the welfare reform bill was enacted into law. With the passage of the welfare reform bill came strict guidelines that serve to ensure the separation of church and state and the preservation of anti-discrimination laws. The current charitable choice model provides certain constitutional protections to ensure that religious activities are not supported by tax dollars. One of these provisions requires religious organizations to keep federal funds in separate accounts that are open to audit by the government. I believe religious organizations should be able to receive funds through the process in current law that protects the character of religious institutions while preserving the civil liberties of the general public. However, H.R. 7 would greatly expand current law and would break down the constitutional protections of the current system. H.R. 7 would enable a religious organization to engage in discriminatory practices based on religion if an employee or potential employee does not practice the teachings and tenets of that religion. This creates a gaping hole in the civil liberties of many individuals including unwed and pregnant women, gays and lesbians, women who have had abortions, and divorced individuals. It could even reach people who use birth control or favor reproductive rights. As if that was not enough, the bill intentionally supersedes any state or local antidiscrimination law. This means that a local law, passed by a community that believes employment discrimination based on religion is wrong could be effectively overturned if a religious organization receiving federal funds wants to fire an employee based solely on their beliefs. I find the willingness of this Congress to codify employment discrimination and destroy state and local antidiscrimination laws deplorable. Additionally, the ``Charitable Choice'' bill would permit taxpayer dollars to go toward religious worship and proselytizing. Under current law, a religious organization that receives federal funding cannot use those funds for proselytizing, religious worship, or religious instruction. However, H.R. 7 contains an ill-defined provision that would allow federal funds to be funneled through governmental agencies in the form of vouchers that could be applied toward services provided by a religious organization. These funds would be available to religious organizations even if they are used for religious instruction, proselytizing, or sectarian worship. Congress should not weaken protections in current law that ensure the separation of church and state. In conclusion, I believe H.R. 7 should have been defeated because it attacks some of the basic principles in America. I do not believe Congress should allow the wall dividing church and state to be chipped away. Congress should recognize the important contributions that religious organizations make in providing social services to needy people but should also maintain the essential protections for our democracy.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 2001, my vote on final passage of H.R. 2500, the ``Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002'' was not recorded. I support the bill and intended to vote ``yes.'' I support this bill because it is fair and bipartisan, and appropriately funds many important programs and agencies in the government. This bill appropriates $41.5 billion, which is 4 percent more than the current level and 2 percent more than requested by the president. I am pleased that this bill adequately funds many important programs that have not received appropriate funding in the past. Specifically, H.R. 2500 provides $1.01 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services, a program that I strongly support and that contributes to the safety of our neighborhood streets. It also provides $844 million for international peacekeeping efforts, including $2 million to conduct programs that monitor and combat human trafficking. $440 million is included for conservation programs to clean oceans and waterways. Additionally, the bill appropriates $329 million for the Legal Services Corporation which provides legal assistance to lower-income Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 50. I firmly believe that engagement is the only thing that will bring positive change in the Republic of China in the areas that I care so deeply about: human rights, labor and environmental sustainability. China is well on its way to joining the WTO, so the vote today is largely symbolic. I have consistently voted to support the annual extension of NTR status because of my belief that revoking it would worsen our relationship with China and negatively impact these issues. In addition, it could worsen the national security issues that have long plagued U.S.-China relations. Closing the door on China will not improve the lives of those who are suffering under an oppressive regime. It will not raise the standard of living in China. And it will not benefit our citizens by opening the market for American goods and services. In my state alone, there are already hundreds of companies that have begun exporting products to China. The potential for increased trade once China has lowered its tariffs is enormous in such areas as manufactured goods, technology and agriculture, just to name a few. A more open market will create significant new business opportunities for a broad cross section of Colorado businesses. Enhanced trade relations with China will economically benefit my district, my state and the nation as a whole. After much discussion and deliberation I decided to support PNTR because I strongly believe it will economically benefit the people of Colorado, and because I believe continued long-term engagement with China is the best way to promote democracy and protect human rights. An open door to the West provides the best hope for progressive change in China over the long term, both in terms of American business opportunities and human rights. It is possible to both reap the economic benefits and help promote democracy and free markets in China. Enhancing trade and diplomatic relations will accomplish these goals.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering here tonight is very straightforward. It removes the language of the bill that prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services for women in Federal prison. Unlike other American women who are denied Federal coverage of abortion services, most women in prison are indigent. They have little access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low wages in prison jobs. They are also often incarcerated in prisons that are far away from their support system of family and friends and, as a result, inmates in the Federal Prison System are completely dependent on the Bureau of Prisons for all their needs, including food, shelter, clothing, and all on their aspects of their medical care. These women are not able to work at jobs that would enable them to pay for medical services, including abortion services, and most of them do not have the support of families to pay for those services. The overwhelming majority of women in Federal prisons work on the general pay scale and earn from 12 cents to 40 cents an hour, which equals roughly $5 to $16 a week. Let me repeat that. The average woman inmate in prison earns $5 to $16 per week. The average cost of an early outpatient abortion ranges from $200 to $400, and it goes up from there. Even if a woman in the Federal Prison System earned the maximum wage on the general pay scale and worked 40 hours a week, which many prisoners are not able to do, she would not earn enough in 12 weeks to pay for an abortion in the first trimester if she so chose, and, of course, after that, the cost and risks of an abortion go up dramatically. So, the woman in prison is caught in a vicious cycle. Even if she saved her entire income, every single penny, she could never afford an abortion on her own. Therefore, women in prison do not have any choice at all. Congress's continued denial of coverage of abortion services for Federal inmates has effectively shut down the only avenue these women have to pursue their constitutional right to choose. Let me remind my colleagues, for the last 28 years, women in America have had a constitutional right to choose abortion as a reproductive choice. This right does not disappear when a woman walks through the prison doors. The consequence of the Federal funding ban is that inmates who have no independent financial means, which is most of them, are foreclosed from their constitutional choice of an abortion in violation of their rights under the Constitution. With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend on for the rest of their health services, many pregnant women prisoners are, in fact, forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Motherhood is mandated for them. I think it is important to point out that the anti-choice movement in Congress has denied coverage for abortion services to women in the military, denied coverage for women who work for the government, for poor people, and for all women insured by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I vehemently disagree with all of these restrictions. I think they are wrong, and I think they are mean-spirited. But frankly, this restriction is the worst of all, and here is why: it targets the people who have the fewest resources and the least number of options. It effectively denies these women their fundamental right to choose. It is not just coercive, it is downright inhumane. Now, let me talk for a moment about the types of women in the Federal Prison System. Many are victims of physical and sexual abuse. That is how they got pregnant, oftentimes. Two-thirds of the women who are incarcerated are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Many of them are HIV-infected, and many of them have full-blown AIDS. Congress thinks that it is in our country's best interest to force motherhood on these women? It is simply not our place to make this decision. Mr. Chairman, what will happen to these children? What will happen to the children of mothers who have unwanted babies in prison? Frankly, I think this is the worst kind of government intrusion into the most personal of decisions. I wholeheartedly support the right of women in prison to bring their pregnancy to term if they so choose. They, not me, not anyone here, should make that decision for them. I want to make it perfectly clear what this amendment is really about. It is about forcing some women, against their will, to bear a child in prison, when that child will be shortly taken away from them at birth, and then, to have that child raised heaven knows where. It is cruel and it is unfair to force them to go through this pregnancy and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for the DeGette amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, all of us, all of us want to see lower drug prices, and all of us are frustrated by the high price of drugs. It does no good, though, to import these drugs if we cannot be guaranteed of their efficacy. In my hand I have three packages of Viagra, all of them imported. Two of these packages are counterfeit. All the packages look the same. The holograms on the back are the same and the blister packs holding the pills are exactly the same in all three boxes. I am sure that two of these boxes are cheaper than the third, but I would ask my gentlemen colleagues if they would rather have lower prices, or which two of these boxes would they take?

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the women of this country who have breast cancer desperately want Tamoxifen but they do not want counterfeit Tamoxifen, and that is the problem with some of these amendments. There are a number of problems with this amendment, and that is why I rise in opposition to it. First of all, the terms of this amendment are vague; and it is not even clear how it is intended to function. For example, the amendment only applies to an individual who is not in the business of importing prescription drugs. Who is this person, and what business is this person in? The key question is: Why does one want to give a person not in the drug-import business free rein to import drugs? Secondly, the amendment makes a number of references to the requirement that these incoming drugs appear to not violate certain FDA rules and are not controlled substances. The problem with this approach is one cannot tell whether or not they are, in fact, safe drugs. On the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we saw some drugs that looked perfectly fine and they were made out of yellow paint. So one cannot tell upon inspection whether or not they are a controlled substance or whether or not they are legitimate. Third and most importantly, this amendment directly affects section 801 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This section is the safety section which provides the U.S. Customs Service and FDA the ability to process and examine foreign shipments of drugs to prevent potentially tainted, adulterated, or counterfeit drugs from being delivered to unsuspecting customers. Defunding, or doing anything to undermine this section, will obviously lead to serious problems. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, this will not do anything to help legitimate cheaper drugs coming into this country, and instead what we should probably do is hammer signs into the ground at the borders announcing, welcome to the U.S., drug counterfeiters and criminals. You are welcome here in the land of opportunity.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, why should we use Federal money for embryonic stem cell research? While it is a difficult medical-ethical decision to make sure we put controls in place, embryonic stem cell research promises new breakthroughs in science that will help literally tens of millions of Americans. There are three reasons why we need to make sure this research is federally funded and federally supervised. First, medical breakthroughs of underestimated value are available through funding of this research. A large body of successful work with mouse embryonic stem cells shows these cells are superior to adult stem cells in the development of what may be cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases. Second, Federal funding provide necessary oversight of stem cell research. This is the new frontier, and we need to make sure we keep control of it. Finally, America has the greatest health, medical and science community in the world. Federal funding will help U.S. scientists keep pace with international researchers. We need to find the cure for diabetes, we need to find the cure for Parkinson's, for Alzheimer's and so many other diseases. Let us keep this research going.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the 20th anniversary of the first diagnosed case of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the United States. The past twenty years have heralded many medical advances, especially in drug treatment therapies for AIDS patients. However, despite an increased understanding of the disease and an improved quality of care for patients, more than 438,000 people have died from the disease since the early 1980s in the United States alone. Efforts towards prevention and education have helped decrease the magnitude of the epidemic, however there are currently more than 750,000 people living with AIDS in the U.S. Among new infections, the fastest growing segment is women and children. In fact, national statistics indicate that AIDS is the seventh leading cause of death among youths between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four. Surveys also indicate that approximately 87 percent of young Americans do not believe that they are at risk for contracting HIV. A growing number of cases of infection in youths clearly demonstrates a need for a greater emphasis on education, and prevention. While the AIDS scare of the late 1980s and the early 1990s appears to be over, the persistence of this insidious disease is not. Complacency about this disease and its reach must not be allowed to grow. Among the federal government's programs and legislation addressing the issue of AIDS, one of the most effective is the Ryan White Care Act, which was signed into law in 1990 and reauthorized in 2000. The ultimate goal of this act is to improve health care and make it more accessible to patients and their families. In order to achieve this, the Ryan White Care Act provides funding to states as well as nonprofit organizations that develop and organize the distribution of necessary health care and services to patients and their families. This act has been helpful to residents with HIV/AIDS in my home state of Colorado, where there were 6,761 reported cases of AIDS in 1999. During the 2000 Fiscal Year, the state of Colorado qualified for over $4 million under Title I of the Ryan White Care Act, which provided funding to improve health care in metropolitan areas disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Title IV appropriated over $600 K in additional dollars to fund programs focusing on women, infants, children, and youth in Colorado. This funding has been put to good use in Colorado, as it has not only helped children receive better care, but has also improved their access to necessary treatment. Considering that children are one of the fastest growing groups affected by AIDS, we must do all we can to stem the tide of its growth. We must continue to support measures that insure all patients receive adequate care, and continue our efforts to protect and educate our youth, since they are the future.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1885, a bill that will extend by four months the time for eligible individuals to apply for permanent resident status in the United States. While this bill does not extend the deadline by a year or make it permanent as I would prefer, it is a humane effort and a good first step to assist people eligible for permanent residency. To be eligible to apply for permanent residency, an individual must have family in the US or must be sponsored by an employer. However, under current law, eligible individuals cannot file while in the US. Instead, they must leave the country and file from abroad. By forcing people to leave the country, we are ensuring that lives are uprooted, families are separated, and valuable jobs are lost. Expanding Section 245(i) of the immigration code is necessary to keep families together and to promote steady employment. It would grant no special rights or status for immigrants but would instead clear an expensive and time-consuming procedural hurdle for people already living in the United States who are eligible to apply for permanent residency status. As the deadline approached last month, INS offices across the country remained open for extended hours to allow eligible people to apply in the US. Almost all the people who apply are approved, therefore, we should extend the deadline. H.R. 1885 is a logical and humane response to a provision of the law that does not make sense and should be changed. It is my hope and understanding that although this bill does not make this section of immigration law permanent, Congress will act soon to enact further extensions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It has been said, but I will say it again: the issue we are debating today is not abortion, it is family planning. Equally important, everyone who will be voting on this amendment today needs to know that the ban on international family planning assistance is more restrictive than any this House has voted on before. If this amendment passes, the global gag rule will go back into effect. This policy disqualifies overseas groups from U.S. planning assistance if they use their own funds simply to counsel pregnant women on all their pregnancy options, including birth control. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois said, well, birth control will still be there. These workers just will not be able to tell the women about it. Well, that is really helpful, if the birth control is sitting there in the drawer and no one can tell them about it. The truth is, we all do share one goal today. The goal we share is reducing abortion overseas. There is one way to reduce abortion overseas, and that is family planning. Vote ``no'' on the Hyde amendment, and let us keep family planning available to women around the globe.