Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001. This bill will be the first, the first in the Federal statutes, to give separate legal status to a fetus. The proponents of the legislation claim that they are protecting the mother, but that is not their true intention. If it were their true intention, why would the anti-choice right-to-life groups support the bill, and why would the domestic violence victims advocacy groups oppose the bill? If people were so concerned about violence against pregnant women, why are not those pregnant women even mentioned in the bill? If the issue is about violence to women, why do the proponents of the bill not support the Lofgren substitute, which is concerned about the woman and her fetus? Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans are pro- choice and they depend on this Congress to protect a woman's right to choose while simultaneously working to make abortion a rare occurrence. The women of this country count on us as legislators to craft Federal policies that are really intended to protect their health and well- being. They rely on us to pass legislation that will protect their reproductive choices. Women depend on us to know the difference between legislation that is truly intended to protect them and a poorly disguised vehicle designed to reopen the debate on Roe v. Wade. We are not fooled by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly, neither are the women we represent. If Members of this House really care about taking steps to protect pregnant women and to punish the terrible perpetrators who mercilessly beat them, then we will all join together, pro-life and pro-choice, and join hands across the aisle to vote for the Lofgren substitute. The Lofgren substitute actually, as we will hear, provides greater levels of punishment to the perpetrators of the heinous crime of harming a pregnant woman. In fact, there is only one difference between the substitute and the underlying bill; and that underlying difference reveals the true goal of H.R. 503. The underlying bill creates a Federal criminal offense that provides a pregnancy from conception to birth with a legal status separate from that of the mother. Regardless of what we are hearing today from proponents of this legislation, there is only one reason to support this new criminal offense over the Lofgren substitute, and that is to take the first step of defending a fetus at any stage of development as a person. If the supporters of this legislation want to debate the merits of abortion, I think we should do it out in the open. They should be embarrassed about cloaking their true intent in an issue. They should be embarrassed about cloaking their true intent on an issue that we all agree upon and that we care deeply about, and that is protecting pregnant women from violence. But the fact is, this is intentional; and the reason is there is a great reluctance on the part of the proponents of this bill to openly debate the issue of a woman's right to choose in this Chamber. Opponents of the right to choose know they are out of step with the majority of the American public, and so they are working sideways to begin to erode that right in our statutes. We keep hearing that those who support this bill talk about two victims. But what they are omitting is the fact that this act does not mention women. So, in fact, the bill is not about two victims at all. Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute improves the bill. It is a good alternative. It punishes the perpetrators. I urge adoption of the amendment; and if the amendment is not adopted, I urge defeat of the ill-intentioned legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender publication in the Rocky Mountain region, Out Front Colorado, for its tremendous success over the past 25 years. In April 1976, the first edition of Out Front Colorado hit the streets, only seven years after the historic Stonewall Riots in New York City. As a new publication for a growing community, Out Front Colorado began boldly with its first headline ``There's No Turning Back.'' Indeed, in the last 25 years, Out Front Colorado has played an important role in the cultural and community development of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people in Colorado with valuable news coverage, arts and entertainment, community events, and photographs that have documented the vibrant history of Colorado's diverse community. And its impact continues to grow. Today, Out Front Colorado is available across the nation from New York City to Los Angeles. The success of Out Front Colorado can in large measure be attributed to its extraordinary staff. Out Front Colorado was founded by Phil Price, who sought to create a newspaper specifically tailored toward Colorado's gay and lesbian residents. Out Front Colorado became successful in its reach and influence under his direction. Although Phil Price passed away in 1993, the current staff of Out Front Colorado should be commended for continuing the superb work that Phil pioneered. I am pleased to support Out Front Colorado as a valuable institution to Colorado's community and history and am pleased to recognize there's still no turning back!

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 54, to commemorate African American pioneers in Colorado and I thank my colleague for introducing this important legislation. I believe it is appropriate for Americans to more fully understand the contributions made by African Americans to the history of our country, especially their roles in shaping the culture of the West. Specifically, this resolution highlights the founding of a town called Dearfield, Colorado by Oliver T. Jackson in 1910. It is appropriate this February, during Black History Month, to honor the founding of Dearfield as well as other contributions African Americans made to the development of the West. The Black American West Museum and Heritage Center is located in my district in Denver. Paul Stewart founded this museum to educate people about the role of African Americans in the settling of the West. When Mr. Stewart played ``Cowboys and Indians'' as a child, he never played a cowboy because, as he was told, there were no black cowboys. Through the work of the Black History Museum and Heritage Center, Mr. Stewart has since proven his childhood friends wrong. Nearly one-third of the cowboys who helped build the West were African American. In fact, African Americans in the West worked in various positions including doctors, riders on the Pony Express, stage coach drivers, teachers, and soldiers. In Colorado, Dearfield was established by an African American and grew to include a school, churches, a blacksmith shop, a doctor's office, and other community markers. Dearfield succumbed to a drought and the Great Depression in the mid-1930's, yet it remains a prized piece of African American history in the Western United States. The African American pioneers of the early West achieved much during their lives, including helping to pave the way for modern-day African American pioneers. From civil rights activists to teachers and business leaders, African Americans continue to shape and influence Colorado and the American West. While we pause to remember those African Americans who helped settle Colorado, let us also recognize those who continue to shape our state and nation. I thank Congressman Schaffer for introducing this legislation and reminding us all of the important contributions to Colorado and the West made by African Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the notable accomplishments and extraordinary life of a woman in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this community leader for her exceptional record of civic leadership and invaluable service. It is to commend this outstanding citizen that I rise to honor Katherine Weaver Schomp. Kay Schomp was a remarkable woman who lived a remarkable life. She touched the lives of many people and made a tremendous impact on our community. Her indomitable spirit sustained her through many challenges and molded a life of notable accomplishment. Born in Pueblo, Colorado, she attended the Pueblo Public Schools and thereafter continued her education at Bossier's, Neuitly-Sur-Seine, France, the University of Colorado at Boulder and George Washington University in Washington DC where she graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in International Relations. She married Ralph Schomp in 1941 and was the mother of six daughters--Sara, Halcyon, Caroline, Lisa, Katherine and Mary Margaret. Those who knew Kay Schomp understood that her passion was community service. She was well known in the Denver area for her outspoken commentary and for her immeasurable contribution to the life of our community. She has amassed a distinguished record of leadership and has made numerous contributions in many areas. But her contributions to education and children, health care, media and the arts are of particular note. Kay was a powerful advocate for equal education and in 1973, she was elected to the Denver Public Schools Board of Education where she served in numerous capacities which included chairing the special education, investment and facilities planning committees, and the City- Schools Coordinating Commission. She organized and facilitated the Student Board of Education, the Integrated Arts Program, the Gilpin Extended Day Care School and served on the National School Boards Association. In media and the arts, she served on the Colorado Commission on the Arts, the Council for Educational Television and the Public Broadcasting Service. She was a board member of Denver Community Television, the Five Points Media Association and the Cable Television Coordinating Committee. In health care, she served as a board member for the Denver Mental Health Association, the Denver Board for the Developmentally Disabled, and the Denver Visiting Nurses Association. Kay Schomp was also a successful businesswoman and was the co-owner and operator of KWS Investments, a firm specializing in urban properties. Kay also found time to serve on the Mayor's Child Care Advisory Commission, the Denver Youth Commission, and serve as a board member of the YMCA of Denver and the League of Women Voters. It comes as no surprise to our community that Kay Schomp was the recipient of numerous awards including the American Civil Liberties Union Whitehead Award, the Denver Mayor's Commission on the Arts, Culture and Film Award, the International Women Writer's Guild Artist for Life Award, the Bonfils-Stanton Foundation Award for Community Service, the CANPO William Funk Award for Community Activism and the International Women's Forum Life Achievement Award. Kay Schomp lived a life of meaning and one that was rich in consequence. It is the character and deeds of Kay Schomp, and all Americans like her, which distinguishes us as a nation and ennobles us as a people. Truly, we are all diminished by the passing of this remarkable woman. Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Kay Schomp. It is the values, leadership and commitment she exhibited during her life that has served to build a better future for all Americans. Her life serves as an example to which we should all aspire.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is considering legislation which would authorize the construction of a dam and reservoir that will implement the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. The Settlement Act, through the construction of the Animas La-Plata project, (ALP) is intended to provide the Colorado Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes an assured long-term water supply in order to satisfy the Tribes' senior water rights. That said, what we really are addressing is justice. The Ute Tribes once held the majority of the Western Slope of Colorado, but that land was slowly and systematically taken from them by the United States Government. For over one hundred and thirty years, the Ute Tribes have been denied their rights as stewards of the land. Some object to the ALP project in any form because of its environmental impacts or cost to the taxpayer. I understand and share those concerns. However, it is time to right the past wrongs that the federal government inflicted upon the Ute people. It is unjust to delay this settlement any longer, for doing so would continue a cycle of broken promises to the Ute Tribes that is far too familiar. The Utes have been extraordinarily patient. Thirty-two years of debate and delay have brought us numerous versions of this project-- ALP, ALP-Lite, ALP Ultra-lite--it has become difficult to keep track. The project has been evaluated by numerous federal and state agencies, and subject to multiple lawsuits and negotiation sessions. All of which have brought us here today to vote on this proposal, which is vastly different from the original Animas La-Plata project put forth in 1968. It is narrowly tailored and significantly downsized. In fact, it cannot even be called Animas La-Plata anymore because the La-Plata River has been taken out of the equation. Yet, this project still satisfies the senior water rights of the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes and finally fulfills our promises to them. I also am pleased that this bill instructs the Department of the Interior to complete a thorough environmental analysis of the current proposal. Previous versions of ALP were appropriately delayed in order to fully assess the impact on endangered species and the environment. The resulting discussions and additional research contributed to the redesigned project proposed today. Since the final proposal of ALP is vastly different from previous designs, it is critical that the environmental impacts of this new version continue to be carefully evaluated in order to ensure adequate protection of the environment. I support the Animas La Plata project as outlined in this legislation as the most viable manner in which to satisfy the Ute Tribes' water rights that were established under their 1868 treaty with the United States, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States (1908). Colorado's Ute Tribes have waited long enough for the fulfillment of that treaty. I urge passage of this bill so that the tribes may regain some of what we have taken from them.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1972, legislation to convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado the site of Joe Rowell Park, and S. 2594, legislation to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contract with the Mancos, Colorado water conservancy district to use its water facilities. Mr. Speaker, Joe Rowell Park in Dolores, Colorado is a focal point of the community. This 24-acre park provides the Town of Dolores with a place for baseball and soccer games, a playground and a restful, beautiful spot for recreation. The property is currently owned by the United States Forest Service and leased to the Town of Dolores, which has invested over $400,000 to improve Joe Rowell Park. This investment created the only lit baseball and softball fields in the Forest Service's inventory. However, the leasing arrangement has caused management difficulties for both parties involved. As a result, the Forest Service determined that Joe Rowell Park is suitable for conveyance into non-federal ownership by the Town of Dolores. I commend my colleague, Senator Wayne Allard for offering this legislation to streamline the management of this important park in Dolores, Colorado and support the passage of this bill. I also rise in strong support of S. 2594, legislation that would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to contract with the Mancos, Colorado water conservancy district to use the Mancos project facilities to store and wheel non-project water for irrigation and domestic, municipal and industrial uses. This legislation would allow the Mancos, Colorado water conservancy district to continue to contract to carry non-project water, which has become a normal operational procedure at the facility. Using Mancos' excess capacity encourages more efficient water management on project lands and more flexible use of the project's facilities. I am pleased to support this legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I too am dismayed at the tone this debate has taken with respect to immigration, and I am saddened and ashamed about it. All of us think we should enforce the immigration laws; but the immigration laws have worked to damage a segment of our society, hard- working Americans with families who work hard and pay taxes every day, people who have been here since before 1986, paying taxes and raising families, and the law needs to be made equitable for those people. Last year, in Denver, we had a lady who, because she was afraid she would be ejected from this country permanently under the immigration laws, left this country. She left this country and she left her newborn child, who is an American citizen, in the arms of her husband, who is also an American citizen, because she was afraid that she would never be able to come back if she did not leave and reapply. That is not only an inequity, it is a terrible human tragedy, and that is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to open the borders to everybody. We are not trying to let criminals in here. We are trying to protect the rights of hard-working Americans who are decent citizens and who pay taxes. That is what we are trying to do. I think we should stop all of this terrible slurring on the race and everything else, and we ought to get down to what this is all about.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an example of a fatally flawed partisan process that strips out important provisions that are important to a list of bipartisan supporters. First and foremost, almost 50 percent of funding in this bill before us goes to HMO's in the Medicare program--over $34 billion over the next 10 years. Let me repeat: . . . $34 billion to Medicare HMO's that serve just 16 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries. And why? Under current law, according to the General Accounting Office, ``Medicare's overly generous payment rates [to HMOs] well exceed what Medicare would have paid had these individuals remained in the traditional fee-for-service program.'' Incredibly, in the name of moving to what some claim is a more efficient model of care, we could completely repeal Medicare+Choice and save taxpayers money, reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries, and extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. There is a fundamental problem with the Medicare+Choice program, and it goes well beyond the argument that we need to address pull-outs of managed care plans. Instead, we need a fundamental re-consideration of how this program operates. Instead, this Republican bill is throwing yet another $34 billion into the program. What are we getting for this $34 billion? There is no guarantee that plans will not drop out of communities or Medicare altogether. There is no guarantee that they will put new money toward maintaining benefits rather than shoring up their bottom lines. Where is the accountability for $34 billion? Time and time again in the Congress, you have to question which party is truly about fiscal responsibility. This partisan Republican drafted bill certainly does not reflect such responsibility. To pay HMOs all of this money with no accountability,what was dropped or lost? Dramatically cut by 72 percent was the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) program from the levels passed in a bipartisan mark-up in the House Commerce Committee. That bipartisan legislation, introduced by Chairman Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell, incorporated provisions from legislation introduced by Representatives Whitfield, Bilbray, and myself. That legislation corrected a $10.4 billion cut to the Medicaid DSH program over five years. It prevents further cuts to the Medicaid DSH program in FY 2001 and well into the future. In sharp contrast, the partisan Republican bill before us only protects the program in FY 2001 and FY 2002 and that dramatically cuts funding to states and our nation's safety net hospitals in FY 2003. The effect is a 72 percent cut from what was included in bipartisan Commerce Committee package. In the State of California, hospitals will lose $143 million in federal Medicaid DSH funding in FY 2003. This legislation imposes a horrible cliff effect on hospitals and a fix that would require $4 billion over 5 years. Don't put off this issue on the 107th Congress. Address it today. What other provisions were dropped or left out in order to give Medicare HMO's the bulk of the money? Dropped were bipartisan proposals to provide health coverage options to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, which was included in my bill, the Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act. Dropped was another provision from that bill to improve enrollment for uninsured children in schools and other sites. Not included were provisions to extend coverage to pregnant women through CHIP--resulting in bizarre public policy that provides prenatal care just to teenagers that get pregnant prior to age 18 but cuts them off once them become adults. If you are concerned about infant mortality, mother-to-child HIV transmission and a number of other maternal and child health issues, this is something that we should pass this year. Dropped was the Family Opportunity Act, which would have improved work incentives for parents of children with disabilities who cannot access private health insurance. Dropped was a provision to extent the transitional health coverage for people leaving welfare for work. Dropped was provision to extend Medicare coverage for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, whose life expectancy following diagnosis is often shorter than the waiting period. Not included was a $3,000 tax credit for people with long-term care needs or their family caregivers. Not included were provisions to provide Medicare and Medicaid smoking cessation counseling to help out nation's elderly and low- income populations stop smoking and extend their lives. Not included was anything to address the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. What's more, this bill omits common sense language that was included in the Commerce Committee's mark to improve Medicare coverage of diabetes outpatient self-management training authorized in the 1997 BBA. This simple technical fix would allow the Health Care Financing Administration to recognize state diabetes education programs already established by nearly a dozen states so that they may continue to provide that service for beneficiaries. As it is written currently, the 1997 BBA provision forces HCFA to slash the number of diabetes education programs eligible for Medicare by setting unreasonable credentialing standards, which do not recognize the state programs. HCFA estimates that only 750 programs would meet the new standards next year. Hundreds of programs currently in operation would be forced to stop serving Medicare patients. This is not the expansion of service that was envisioned in 1997. The technical fix makes sense; it is a low-cost, bi-partisan provision, yet it has vanished as a casualty of partisan wrangling and Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes will be the victims. In addition, there are a growing number of reports across this nation about how states have failed to spend their CHIP allotments due to poor outreach and enrollment and state bureaucratic barriers. In a number of GAO reports during the past three years, a number of these bureaucratic barriers have been identified and highlighted. We now have three years of experience with this program and a number of reports that all point to the bureaucratic barriers that prevent children from gaining access to coverage, including unnecessarily lengthy and complex application forms and enrollment processes. For these reasons, I firmly believe we should consider comprehensive legislation in this area this year to address the problems we all know to be true with the CHIP program. Rather than enact the $1.9 billion reduction in CHIP that the Senate Appropriations Committee originally proposed or to reallocate money among the states, we should fix the problems. While I understand that some may not want to address this issue out of concern that it highlights particularly terrible enrollment in Texas, it is the 10 million uninsured children in this country that are left suffering. And finally, I would also like to highlight an additional concern with the impact that BBA may have on Medicare beneficiaries with regard to their access to vital ambulance services. The BBA required HCFA to place ambulance service providers on a Medicare fee schedule through a negotiated rulemaking process. The problem was the BBA required the process to be conducted in a budget neutral fashion, so HCFA was precluded from addressing the actual costs of such services in creating the new few schedule. Unfortunately, a recent study by Project Hope, an esteemed health care think tank, indicates that ambulance services providers may face a profound shortfall in Medicare payments. It is essential that these providers are fairly reimbursed so that Medicare beneficiaries, and all Americans, are guaranteed that the 911 system is protected and there when needed. Certainly, there are a number of provisions in this legislation that I strongly support, including: Language from may bill, the Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Preservation Act, which prevents further pending Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) cuts to states and our nation's safety net hospitals. Language to help our nation's community health centers receive adequate payments through the Medicaid program. Language to address hospital Medicare bad debt payments, which comes from legislation I introduced with Representative Greenwood. Language to fund diabetes research at levels of $70 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and $100 million in fiscal year 2003. Those provisions and others in the bill related to hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, others are fantastic and should be supported. However, they all come from language passed in the bipartisan Commerce Committee mark-up on September 27, 2000. Unfortunately, we can do much better. Our nation's elderly and low- income citizens deserve it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. Colorado's Great Sand Dunes area is an amazing site, well worth the protection afforded by a national park designation. As we have seen from that magnificent photo that my colleague from the Western Slope has, the Sand Dunes rise up from the Colorado plains evoking the great Sahara Desert's mountains of sand. Yet the Great Sand Dunes are but a part of the larger unique ecosystem. The snow-capped Sangre de Cristo Mountains tower in the background, and nearby wetlands harbor numerous species, including sandhill cranes and white-faced ibis. The entire ecosystem will benefit from the protection Congress provides today. This designation will also benefit the people of southern Colorado, not only because it protects one of their most treasured natural resources, but also because such protection will boost the local economy. Preserving natural resources provides Western Slope communities with a comparative advantage over other rural areas for diversifying their economy by enhancing their ability to attract and retain businesses and a talented workforce. Protecting public lands provides many economic benefits and maintains the natural capital that forms the foundation of Colorado's identity, quality of life and economic well-being. I sincerely hope that the passage of this bill is the next step in a concentrated effort to safeguard all lands in Colorado which are deserving of appropriate protection. Last year, for example, I introduced H.R. 829, the Colorado Wilderness Act. This legislation would designate 1.4 million acres of land in Colorado as wilderness, including a small portion of the Great Sand Dunes. Today's legislation does not include any wilderness designation, and I hope the Colorado delegation will work together, as we did on this bill and several other bills, to provide the protection wilderness designation affords to these areas. Earlier this year, the Colorado delegation came together to designate the Black Ridge Canyons as wilderness. Yesterday the House passed the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act. Today we have another bipartisan effort that will result in strong protections for unique parts of Colorado. These are good first steps. However, because of the growth pressures on our precious public lands in Colorado, we need to look at a comprehensive Colorado public lands policy. Public support throughout the State is growing for this proposal tonight and other public lands proposals, as is evidenced by the bipartisan support you heard from my colleagues, that our legislature, that our local elected officials and that our citizens have all across the State for more protection of public lands. Well, today's legislation will provide protection for some of Colorado's most unique areas. We must not stop there. We need to take additional steps to protect other areas of Colorado from the threats of growth and overuse. Areas such as Dominguez Canyon and Handies Peak are wilderness study areas that must be protected through permanent wilderness designation. If we wait to act on each of the 48 areas in Colorado included within my bill that deserve wilderness protection individually, many of them will be gone by the time we are ready to legislate. So I want to commend my colleague from the Western Slope. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and the bipartisan support of my fellow Members of Congress on this bill. I hope we can all sit together and work over the recess to have comprehensive Colorado omnibus wilderness legislation in the next session.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the notable accomplishments and extraordinary life of a woman in the First Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this community leader for her exceptional record of civic leadership and invaluable service. It is to commend this outstanding citizen that I rise to honor Selma Lock. Selma Lock was a remarkable woman who lived a remarkable life. She touched the lives of many people and made a tremendous impact on our community. Her indomitable spirit sustained her through many travails and enormous hardship. Born in Vienna, Austria, her young life was spent as a refugee fleeing Nazi oppression. She and one sister were separated from the family and hid in Budapest. After the war, she was reunited with her mother and siblings and learned that her father was killed at Auschwitz. The family then tried to enter Palestine, but was ordered to spend a year in a war camp in Cyprus by British forces. After the British occupation, the family was allowed into Palestine and Selma joined the Hagannah, fighting on the front lines. Soon after, she became ill with tuberculosis and left Israel. In 1953, she came to Denver to treat her condition at the National Jewish Hospital. Although she lost one lung to this disease, she persevered and enrolled at the University of Colorado Extension Center in Denver. After completing her education, she became a pioneer in radiology at Rose Memorial Hospital and founded the mammography department. She served as head of the department for many years and became a clinical instructor for interns and radiology students at the college. I had the privilege of working with Selma in a political organizing capacity. Those who knew her understood that Selma's true passion was politics. But it was never politics for the sake of politics. For Selma, politics had a high purpose and there was always a fundamental fairness that motivated her endeavors. She was well known in democratic circles for her outspoken commentary and years of service to the Democratic Party. As a precinct committee person, a House district captain, a member of the Denver Executive and State Central Committees, Selma made an immeasurable contribution to the Democratic Party. She played an instrumental role in winning many local, State, and national elections including those of Mayor Federico Pena, Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, and President Clinton. I was also honored to have Selma's support and friendship. In 1982, then Governor Richard Lamm appointed Selma to fill a vacancy in the Colorado House of Representatives where she served for a short time. She was a delegate to four Democratic National Conventions, served on the national rules committee and served as a Presidential elector from Colorado as well. In 1994, Selma was given the much deserved ``Democrat of the Year'' award by the Colorado Democratic Party. To borrow a term from Yiddish, Selma was a mensch--a real human being who is an upright, honorable, and decent person. Selma lived a life of meaning and one that was rich in consequence. It is the character and deeds of Selma Lock and all Americans like her, which distinguishes us as a nation and ennobles us as a people. Truly, we are all diminished by the passing of this remarkable woman. Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Selma Lock. It is the values, leadership, and commitment she exhibited during her life that has served to build a better future for all Americans. Her life serves as an example to which we should all aspire.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the House has finally seen fit to bring this important legislation to the floor. The seniors of our country have been waiting a long time for the valuable programs contained in this bill to be reauthorized. While I will support passage of this bill, H.R. 782, I do so with great reluctance. Not because of what this bill does, but because of what it does not do. H.R. 782 does not recognize the changing demographics in our nation, and does not properly adjust the funding formula in Title III of the Older Americans Act. As a result, Colorado, along with other western and southern states, are being under-funded. This threatens our ability to meet the needs of our seniors. I hope my colleagues understand that the funding formula for Title III of the Older Americans Act, which funds Supportive Services and Multipurpose Senior Centers, Nutrition Services including Congregate and Home Delivered Nutrition Programs (for example Meals on Wheels), Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Services Program, and the Family Caregiver Program, distributes funds in a manner that, according to the General Accounting Office, ``. . . underfunds most states with above-average growth in their elderly populations, as compared with those states with below-average growth.'' The formula we are about to vote on currently distributes 85 percent of the Older Americans Act total fiscal year 2000 grants for Title III based on how much funding each state received 13 years ago in 1987. Let me say that again, we are about to approve a formula that is based on 1987 population data. Only 15 percent of funds are actually distributed based on current population statistics. Therefore, funds are being distributed largely on where the elderly were over 13 years ago rather than where they are today. If this is what we want to call responsive government, then I think we are in trouble. The General Accounting Office, in its report entitled ``Title III, Older Americans Act: Administration on Aging Funding Method Underfunds High-Elderly-Growth States'' released in June 2000, strongly recommends that the formula be amended by this Congress to more fairly distribute funds. Otherwise, as the report notes: ``. . . the gap in funding per elderly person can be large. For example, Arizona's funding per elderly person is 33 percent less than Iowa's under the AOA method . . . AOA's distribution method underfunded 10 states by more than $1 million each in fiscal year 2000 (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) and overfunded 7 others by more than $1 million (Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania).'' It troubles me that this bill has been in committee throughout the 106th Congress and finally comes to the floor with such an inappropriate funding formula. This issue must be addressed. It is not fair to the seniors in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Washington, Virginia, California, Oregon, Maryland, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico. Because it does not appear that there is the desire to right this wrong today, I plan to introduce legislation in the 107th Congress that will correct this problem.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. I support several important provisions of the bill, including a Department of Energy (DOE) defense worker compensation program and a pay raise and expanded health care choices for our men and women in uniform. However, the legislation is so laden with special interest pork projects that I fear it will undermine our ability to be fiscally responsible and pay down our national debt while, at the same time, adequately funding the Nation's highest priorities. Where are our priorities in this Congress? The 106th Congress is drawing rapidly to a close, yet our Nation's schools are crumbling and overcrowded, there are 11 million uninsured children in America, and our seniors lack comprehensive prescription drug benefits. We are not addressing these today, nor are we authorizing $310 billion--or anywhere close to that amount--to address these critical issues facing every American family. Instead, Congress will pass a Defense Authorization Conference Report that includes $4.5 billion more funding than the administration requested and $21.1 billion more than last year's funding level. Over half of the additional $4.5 billion tacked on in this conference report--$2.6 billion--goes toward procurement. I would venture to guess that many of the Members who supported this bill today will be surprised as the special interest projects are revealed in coming days. Unfortunately, I fear this conference report is a reflection of the skewed priorities of the leadership in this House. We have failed to address the real issues facing the American people. There are good provisions in this conference report. I strongly support the establishment of a program that finally recognizes the vital contributions of Department of Energy contract workers who risked their personal health to help protect our Nation. For too many years, the government has denied that these workers were suffering from catastrophic and chronic illnesses that resulted from their work at defense facilities such as Rocky Flats. Earlier this year, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson announced the Department's intention to belatedly remedy this problem and seek to implement a compensation program to aid sick workers. Also, a number of my colleagues and I have supported legislation required to authorize a compensation program. I am a proud cosponsor of Representative Ed Whitfield's (R-KY) bipartisan legislation H.R. 4398. I regret that Congress failed to fully consider and pass H.R. 4398, which I believe would have been the proper approach to address this important issue. I regret that Congress has failed to act and to bring this important legislation before us for proper consideration and action. I am pleased that this conference report includes a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. I believe our military forces deserve fair compensation for the job they do and for the risks they take on behalf of our country. This is why I am a cosponsor of legislation that would provide for a 4.8 percent pay increase to members of the Armed Forces and open the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to active-duty personnel. It is vital that when our armed forces are called to duty they can be assured that their families are secure and able to pay the bills back home. As a cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, I was very pleased that this legislation was included in the Senate version of this H.R. 4205. I would like to note that the House also passed a motion to instruct the conferees to include this provision as part of the final conference agreement. However, the leadership blatantly ignored the will of the House and stripped the Hate Crimes language out of the bill. It is well past time for legislation that makes hate crimes against gays and lesbians, women, and people with disabilities a Federal crime. Every hate crime that occurs in this country is an attack on American values, and it is a disgrace that this language was stripped out of the bill. I hope that, in the final days of the 106th Congress, we can address some of the critical issues facing our Nation today, rather than continuing on the current path which has resulted in a rudderless, haphazard attempt to legislate for a few special interests.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying we can sense the breadth of this bill by listening to the debate on the floor today, everything from child care to imaging, to medical research, vital, vital issues for our children. Again, I am proud to be a part of this debate and of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman, and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is moving forward today to pass legislation seeking to improve the health care of our Nation's children. While much of the health focus in the 106th Congress has been in the area of Medicare programs and other areas of health care policy, Congress has largely neglected the area of children's health and development until my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), spearheaded this important initiative. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work in this area and really forcing this issue before the end of the 106th Congress. I, too, want to add my thanks to the staff, particularly John Ford, Judith Bankendorf, and Eleanor Dehoney of the Committee on Commerce and Bruce Lesley from my staff for their outstanding work on this legislation, as it has been improved through every step of the process due to their hard work and diligence. As the chairman knows, nothing could be more important to our Nation's future than our children. Numerous indicators of the well- being of our children paint a mixed picture. Both in terms of success and shortcomings, they give us a mixed view of what our Nation's future holds. Reports of both gains and continued unmet needs are also apparent with regard to a variety of other pediatric health care needs including infant mortality, immunization rates, pediatric asthma care, youth violence, and the critically important fact that over 11 million children in this country still remain uninsured. It is on this latter point, the issue of uninsured children and adolescents, that I hope this Congress will choose to address through legislative action in the near future. We cannot fully address the health care needs of children without addressing the fact that 11 million children still continue to have limited, sporadic, if any, access to health care. H.R. 4365 takes very important strides to expand pediatric research efforts and increase coordination in Federal resources for a variety of childhood diseases or health problems. While some have questioned such a focus on the needs of children, the Federal Government commitment related to child and adolescent health and development is completely inadequate and desperately needs greater focus and attention to the unique health care problems facing children. According to a report issued by the President's National Science and Technology Council entitled ``Investing in Our Future: A National Research Initiative for America's Children for the 21st Century,'' the combined research spending for children and adolescents through the Federal Government represents ``less than three percent of the total Federal research enterprise''. Thus, the Federal Government commits less than 3 percent of its research focus to improve the lives of children despite the fact that they represent over 30 percent of our Nation's population and our future. As such, pediatric research and prevention efforts must be at the forefront. As the President's National Science and Technology Council concluded: ``Our Nation has a clear stake in ensuring that all of America's children grow up to be healthy, educated, productive and contributing adults. Scientific research is and will continue to be a catalyst for achieving that goal.'' I would like to highlight those provisions in this bill that come from legislation that I introduced in this Congress, including: H.R. 4008, the Pediatric Organ Transplantation Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation, introduced with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), will require that our Nation's organ transplant system recognizes children's unique health care needs and increases research into improving pediatric organ transplantation. For some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, children awaiting lifesaving organ transplants, this language should improve their care and even save lives. H.R. 4594, the Pediatric Diabetes Research and Prevention Act. This initiative, introduced with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) as well as in the Senate by Senator Collins improves our Nation's research and prevention efforts into pediatric diabetes. The language increases the necessary tools to expand clinical trials on children with diabetes to move some of the remarkable research that we are seeing on diabetes from the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside. H.R. 5198, the Children's Research Protection Act. This legislation, introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and Senators Dodd and DeWine, promotes the improvement of pediatric research and protections for children involved in medical research. The provision requires that all HHS-funded and regulated research comply with pediatric-specific human subject protections and has many other important provisions. Finally, H.R. 1313, the Patient Freedom from Restraint Act of 1999. This initiative, which was introduced as companion legislation to bills by Senators Lieberman and Dodd, would take important steps to protect both children and adults with mental illness or mental retardation from being inappropriately placed in endangering restraints or seclusion, which has caused personal harm and even death. There are many other fine provisions of this bill. Several I would like to talk about is the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, Act which improves mental health and substance abuse services for children and adolescents. There are several provisions that have become known as the Columbine provisions because they deal with children and adolescents who are at great risk. One, grants to public entities, seeks to develop ways to assist children in dealing with violence. Another allows the Secretary to use up to 2.5 percent of the funds appropriated for discretionary grants for responding to emergencies. Yet another reauthorizes the high-risk youth program which provides funds to public and nonprofit private entities to establish programs for the prevention of drug abuse among high-risk youths. There are many other fine provisions of SAMHSA which are in this bill and which we will hear about from my colleagues. In addition, the bill has numerous other important children's health provisions, including fragile X research, pediatric asthma, birth defects, hearing loss and newborn screening, childhood cancer, traumatic brain injury, child care safety, graduate medical education for our Nation's children's hospitals and lead poisoning. I am proud of this legislation. I know we are all proud of this legislation. Again I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their courageous leadership on this broad bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the sponsor of the legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1795 amends the Public Health Service Act to require the director of the National Institutes of Health to establish a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering for the purposes of conducting and supporting research, training scientists and health professionals, disseminating relevant information, and sponsoring other programs with respect to biomedical imaging, biomedical engineers, and associated technologies and modalities with biomedical applications, such as bioinformatics and telemedicining. Bioimaging is truly the diagnostic tool of the 21st century. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I am also particularly proud of the hard work that my colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), have done on the legislation; and I commend them for this excellent bill. More than any other area of medicine, medical imaging has radically changed the way physicians detect, diagnose, and treat disease. In the coming years, additional breakthroughs in imaging promise to save more lives and further reduce the need for expensive, invasive, and painful surgery. This proposed institute fulfills all five of the criteria stipulated by the Institute of Medicine in its 1984 report responding to the health needs of the scientific community, the organizational structure of the National Institutes of Health. It would also coordinate all imaging research through the Federal Government in order to enhance communication and avoid duplicity, activities now sorely lacking. I have been assured by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), that the proposed institute has been structured to control administrative costs and mitigate against administrative growth. Indeed, the numbers are sobering. Based on fiscal year 1998 figures, the biomedical imaging program at the National Cancer Institute administered a grant portfolio of nearly $60 million and 220 grants. Given a generous ratio staff-to-grant, the newly proposed institute should easily maintain itself with the 62 full-time employees already working in this discipline through the NIH institute and centers. It would draw most heavily from currently funded positions at the National Cancer Institute and have a responsibility for collection of 932 grants totaling $201.5 million. These figures, together with this great promise of this cutting edge biomedical discipline, make a compelling case for moving forward with the new institute; and I, therefore, support wholeheartedly the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the sponsors of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.