Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. For many years, there has been widespread concern, as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) stated, about the boxing industry in the United States. Not only have scandals plagued the industry as long as I can remember, but fighters have been taken advantage of financially, and opportunities to compete for a title have not always been awarded to legitimate contenders. As my colleagues know, Madam Speaker, almost every other major sport in the United States operates with a central body to establish appropriate business standards and effective mechanisms of self- regulation. But not boxing. Boxing exists in a world of alphabet soup organizations whose rating methodologies are as visceral as the famous Ali mirage and promoters who are as untouchable as Ali was behind the ``rope-a-dope.'' The purpose of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is to increase disclosure and prevent abuses in professional boxing, specifically targeting conflicts of interest that arise for promotors. H.R. 1832 limits contracts between boxers and promotors, ending the coercive practice of requiring long contracts for fighters to obtain particular bouts. The bill also seeks to ensure that the manager is an independent applicant of the boxer, not an agent serving the financial interests of the promoter. Furthermore, the sanctioning organizations would have to establish objective criteria for the rating of professional boxers and to fully disclosure their bylaws, rating systems, and officials. I firmly believe that, with these limitations, the boxing industry can take a giant step toward the 21st century and the ending of corruption. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and especially the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for his hard work on this legislation. Much credit is also due to Senator John McCain, who is the author of the Senate approved version of this bill. In the end, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act puts abuse in the boxing industry on the ropes. By passing this important legislation, I believe that Congress will deliver the final one-two punch to boxing corruption. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing to acknowledge that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did note that I am not the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who has worked very hard on this bill. I too would like to commend him. He is sorry he could not be here to manage the time today, but he had a family emergency and I am filling in. This is an excellent bill, and I commend particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I again want to thank my chairman, the esteemed gentleman from Virginia, for bringing this bill up, and I also want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), for the opportunity to recognize those individuals who are willing to make a living donation of one of their kidneys. The gentleman from Washington and I are cochairs of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, and both of us recognize that for those who care about that particular issue, kidney disease and kidney donation is a critical and important issue for us to be discussing today. Those who donate kidneys are courageous individuals who give selflessly of themselves, literally, to save another person's life. Last year, more than 4,000 living donors gave kidneys. That was 31 percent of the transplants. Over a 10-year period, the number of kidney donations has increased by 54 percent, from 5,688 in 1988 to 8,774 in 1997. The increase in the number of living kidney donors has been even more dramatic, from 1,812 to 3,695, a doubling of living donors to relatives that received this critical gift of life. Every year thousands of lives are saved when a family member, a friend, a coworker, or even a member of the community they do not know makes the choice to donate one of their two kidneys to someone in need. With the need for organ transplants far outpacing the supply, we are also starting to see a new type of donation, a nondirected donation, where an individual makes a choice to donate a kidney to any patient who needs it. An outstanding example of a nondirected live kidney donation is Joyce Roush. In September of this year, she used the donation of her kidney to a stranger as an opportunity to bring the public's attention to the possibility of making nondirected donations. Most of us are also aware of the case where Sean Elliott, of the world champion San Antonio Spurs, needed a kidney transplant and received one from his older brother Noel Elliott. According to Elliott, he would like to return to playing in the NBA this year if possible. Elliott said, ``It's another obstacle I have a chance to topple.'' He has also overcome two knee surgeries. ``It would be a pretty awesome accomplishment,'' he said, ``and a great statement for anyone who faces adversity. It would be inspirational to a lot of people.'' While that certainly would be a tremendous inspiration to many people across the country, the example of his older brother Noel and individuals like Joyce Roush should also be an inspiration and an example for people across the country. Unfortunately, while there has been a substantial increase in organ donations over the past decade, almost 350,000 Americans still have lost their lives to kidney failure. Moreover, the number of patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant has increased by 174 percent, from 13,943 in 1988 to 38,270 in 1997. The number of cadaveric kidney transplants is stagnant, so the fact that we are seeing this increase in living donors in recent years is good news to the many who suffer from kidney failure. We can perform more living donor transplants without either putting the donor or recipient in undue danger because of medical advances. In 1995, a new type of procedure was developed that made a kidney transplant a great deal less intrusive and thus reduced the risk to the donor and cut down on the amount of recovery time. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and I have over 240 Members of the House who have signed on as members of this caucus. We know that the most common cause of end stage renal disease has consistently been diabetes. In fact, 35 percent of the new cases of kidney failure every year and 25 percent of all cases of kidney failure come from diabetic causes. This is true because of the high levels of blood sugar people with diabetes have that cause the kidneys to filter too much blood and leave the kidneys over time unable to filter waste products. Of those beginning ESRD treatment in 1997, just under half are people with diabetes. This is why it is so important every day that relatives, friends, and co-workers and members of the community donate kidneys both to those that they know and those they do not know. I hope we can find ways before we cure diabetes, which is our ultimate and, by the way, our short-term goal, still, in the meantime, we need to find ways to find these kidneys. I want to once again thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for the opportunity to recognize these individuals that make living donations of a kidney and work with him to make sure that we encourage more of this in the future. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again, I would like to thank them for their leadership on this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this appropriations bill. It fails to live up to our commitments on some of the most vital federal programs and plays budgetary games with others. Last week, this House debated two education bills. Throughout the debate, one of the most common things heard, by Members on both sides of the aisle, is how terribly important education is. How improving education in this country is one of the most important issues today. And now we stand here with a bill in front of us that makes unsustainable cuts in some of the most vital educational programs there are. This is unthinkable. Hidden in this bill is a provision that would delay critical medical research for a year. Under the spending plan for the National Institutes of Health, $7.5 billion in funding is essentially locked up until next September 29th, the end of fiscal year 2000. This Republican Congress is prioritizing its budgetary gimmicks--gimmicks that don't even save Social Security--over research that could result in lifesaving breakthroughs for millions of Americans suffering from hundreds of diseases. We cannot ask seven year old Mackenzie Mahr, who testified in front of the Commerce Committee just 2 weeks ago about her diabetes, to wait that much longer for a cure for her disease. Nor can we ask her father, a lieutenant with the Capitol Police, to watch his daughter give herself over 700 shots next year, so that this budget fits arbitrary boundaries. The NIH has said the result of this ploy could postpone all new grant awards for a year. We cannot ask the 16 million diabetics who are waiting for a cure, to risk kidney failure, amputations, and blindness because these research grants cannot be released until the very end of the fiscal year for these budgetary gimmicks. We are at a critical point in diabetes research. 271 Members of Congress joined Congressman Nethercutt and me to urge the NIH to fully fund the $827 million by the Diabetes Research Working Group Report, a comprehensive research plan to help us attack diabetes head on. They understand that diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death due to disease in the United States, the third leading cause in some minority groups. They also understand that the extraordinary research opportunities identified in this report are the critical first steps towards a cure for diabetes. The DRWG recommendations are encouraging and will profoundly impact people with diabetes. A primary goal of the report is to understand the causes of diabetes and how we can prevent or delay the onset of the disease. Additionally, the plan sets forth efforts to effectively manage diabetes to delay, or hopefully avoid altogether the complications of the disease. The DRWG applies recent discoveries in areas like genetics and immunology to diabetes research. If the plan is carried out, a cure is within reach. Do not allow these research opportunities to be delayed, or worse, not funded at all, in the interest of a budgetary shell game. It is the job of Congress to make tough choices and prioritize what is truly important. Numbers should never be placed above research that will save lives.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, what are the priorities of this Congress? Today, the House voted on the Defense Appropriations Conference Report, the final vote to determine funding for the Department of Defense. The Defense Appropriations, Military Construction, and Energy and Water Appropriations bills together have provided $289 billion in defense funds, which is $8 billion more than was requested by the Administration. In addition, the Defense Appropriations Conference Report allocates $1 billion for the procurement of ``test'' F-22 fighters and an additional $275 million has been provided for the purchase of five unrequested F-15 jets. Extra funding, well beyond what is needed to maintain a strong defense, is being allocated to the Defense Department at the same time as programs that help the neediest Americans are being severely cut. Millions of children across the country are without health care, programs to help improve our children's education are being cut, and millions of people are living in poverty at a time when affordable housing is consistently decreasing. This Congress must better prioritize in order to provide for the needs of Americans. Currently, 11 million children in the United States go without health insurance and 150,000 of them are in my home state of Colorado. Eight million children without health insurance could be insured using the excess $8 billion in defense funding. Several ``test'' F-22 fighters will be purchased by the United States at a cost of $300 million per plane. Every uninsured child in Colorado who suffers because he or she cannot receive health care could be covered at half the price of a single F-22 fighter. Instead, the fighter jets will be produced while children in every state across America suffer due to a lack of needed health coverage. Education is another area where deep funding cuts will harm our nation's children. Approximately $3 billion has been targeted for cuts from the education budget for fiscal year 2000. These cuts damage education programs intended to assist over two million children. This proposal would cut programs that provide needed after school care, reading and math help for low-income children, and technology support for schools. Under current proposals, states would not receive grants to assist in School-to-Work programs and funding would be denied for drug and violence coordinators in middle schools across the country. The cost of a single F-22 fighter would provide approximately 750,000 low-income and needy children with lunches at school for a year through the National School Lunch program. In addition, about 675,000 needy students could be provided with school lunches at the cost of the five unrequested F-15 fighters provided for in the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. Instead, 2.9 billion dollars' worth of education programs are in danger of being underfunded. Finally, even in today's booming economy, millions of Americans suffer from homelessness and poverty. According to a Congressional Research Service report by Morton J. Schusseim, ``Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Program for Low-Income Families,'' on any given night, 600,000 people sleep on the streets because they have no home. In addition, 12.5 million people are classified by the government as having severe housing problems such as substandard and crowded living conditions. In recent years, there has been a 15.8 percent increase in the number of very-low-income households in the United States and the number of affordable housing units has decreased by 42 percent between 1974 and 1995. Severe physical deficiencies such as bad wiring, broken heating and dilapidated structures affect 3.1 million families that rent homes. So, what are the priorities of this Congress? The answer lies in its actions. When defense is provided with billions of dollars more than what was requested, when too many kids remain uninsured, and when education initiatives and affordable housing programs are in danger of being cut by millions, it becomes crystal clear that the priorities of this Congress are grossly out of sync with those of the American people.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, children are not just little adults. They have different health and developmental needs than adults, and they often require age-appropriate pediatric expertise to understand, diagnose, and treat their health problems. They deserve health care providers that have training and expertise in their conditions. H.R. 2723, the Dingell-Norwood bill, contains provisions that allow children to have access to pediatricians, access to pediatric specialty care, access to emergency care, continuity of care, appeals to pediatric experts, and pediatric quality assurance provisions. The Boehner substitute, however, as we can see from this chart, fails to measure up in every single comparison. Children are far too often put at risk by being inappropriately referred to certain adult specialists who are not trained in children's health needs. Who is affected? Children like Kaitlynn Bogan of West Alexandria, Ohio, whose health plan would not refer her to a pediatric gastrologist and who continued to react with blood curdling screams until the Bogan family mortgaged their home and went outside the plan to a pediatric specialist who corrected her problem. Carley Christie of Palo Alto, California, who was inappropriately referred to an adult specialist for a Wilms' tumor who performed a needle biopsy which punctured the tumor and essentially tripled the duration of Christie's chemotherapy. The family, finally on their own and at their own expense, again elected to have the surgery performed by a qualified pediatric specialist. Mr. Chairman, the American public strongly supports allowing families like these to get access to the critical pediatric care they need. In fact, 86 percent of Americans have expressed their support for the Dingell-Norwood plan that would ensure children get access to pediatric specialists like pediatric heart specialists and surgeons and to hospitals that specialize in treating children. As adults, we have a responsibility to our kids. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to support the Dingell-Norwood plan.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I remain baffled at this body's ability to undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose. What's more, I am disturbed at the latest trend of crafting vague, amorphous legislative language that flies in the face of the proper intent of legislation by those who seek to limit or abolish this right. The majority of Americans are pro-choice and know that we must protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion while at the same time working to make abortion rare. The other side chooses to ignore this majority. They have determined that the best way to do this is to craft vague, and purportedly narrow, legislative language that undercuts this fundamental right by creating vast legal loopholes and ambiguously worded statutes that result in the near elimination of abortions. Last Friday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down three such vaguely worded statutes from Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas that posed as legislation to prohibit one form of late-term abortion. The Court recognized the backdoor attempt to ban abortions completely and the stifling affect such broad language would have on the health and safety of women in these states. There is not a single member of the House of Representatives who does not think that criminals who brutally attack a pregnant woman should not be held accountable for their actions and punished to the full extent of the law. But if you expect us to naively believe that protecting pregnant women is the only intent of this legislation, you are sadly mistaken. This legislation fails to address many of the very real needs to protect women from violence in its backdoor attempt to undermine the essence of Roe v. Wade. If we are addressing violence to a fetus in utero, the one very large, glaring omission from the legislation we are debating today is the woman carrying that pregnancy. As worded, this legislation turns the woman in to a mere vessel and ignores the simple truth that the abhorrent violent acts we have heard so much about on the floor today are happening to a woman. We should punish people who harm a pregnant woman--but unfortunately we are not debating that fact today because the woman is missing from this legislation. I welcome the opportunity to discuss legislation that would enhance penalties for criminals who commit violent, deplorable crimes against a pregnant woman, particularly if that crime results in the loss of the pregnancy. But the fact that the violent act against the woman is ignored by this legislation, reveals its true intent. This legislation seeks to do one thing--create a separate legal status for a fetus, embryo, blastocyst or zygote to lay the groundwork for a fresh assault on Roe v. Wade. If this Congress wants to protect women, and promote healthy pregnancies, then it should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But, both the Department of Justice and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence have said that this bill fails to help women victims of violence and yet again, diverts attention away from the true victim of the crime, the woman. You cannot toss aside the health and safety of millions of women with legislation that masquerades as an effort to protect them.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New York for her dedication to this issue, and I would also like to thank the chairman, particularly for his dedication to the issue of making sure that the multiple-round ammunition magazines are banned, which is an issue that is in my bill in the House and that he worked with me and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and so many other people to pass. But we do have to pass this. It has not passed. I have to be honest, I have been very skeptical about the probability of the juvenile justice conferees reporting a bill with any child gun safety legislation. So far it looks like this skepticism is not misplaced, because the conferees have not had a substantive meeting since we returned from the August recess. And they did not work substantively over the recess. So I am here to say, let us not have this foot-dragging; let us pass this legislation. It is true we have existing laws, and it is true we should enforce those existing laws. But the truth is there is no gun show law in effect that we could have enforced to stop the killers at Columbine, which is four blocks from my district, from buying those guns at a gun show. There is no existing law to stop the multiple-round ammunition magazines which allow people to shoot scores of people before they can be stopped. And there is no existing law to require gun safety locks to be put on guns. We need common-sense child gun safety locks. The majority of Americans understand this. And my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is exactly right. People from Jefferson County, Colorado, not a Democratic district, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, come to me on the streets of Denver and they beseech me to do something, to pass common-sense child gun safety legislation. It is not a partisan issue. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has amply demonstrated this. But I fear that there are others in the leadership of this House who are not letting this happen. Please pass this motion to instruct.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us would take another step in overwhelming our Federal court system. The legislation will also serve to weaken the ability of consumers to enforce consumer health and safety, environmental, and civil rights laws. For these reasons and others, I will oppose the legislation. But if we are going to pass the legislation, the very least we can do is pass this important amendment to protect the Federal court system from being further taxed. Congress' responsibility vis-a-vis the courts is funding the judiciary, creating the appropriate number of Federal courts, and filling Federal vacancies, and maintaining a delicate balance between what should be a Federal issue and what should properly be addressed in the State courts. Now, how are we doing on these issues? Contrary to what we have just heard, the House, for example, provided the Federal court system with around $240 million less than that requested by the administration. With reduced funding, the court certainly cannot handle additional caseloads, as this bill calls for. What happens in the Federal courts, as someone who was just practicing in them as recently as 3 years ago, and rightly so because of speedy trial concerns, criminal cases take precedence to civil cases. So all of these civil cases we are moving to the Federal courts will simply languish if we do not have Federal judges to hear them. As we have heard, the Federal court system has 64 vacancies currently and anticipates 17 more vacancies shortly. Regrettably, many of these vacancies are concentrated in districts where, as my colleagues have also heard, we have judicial emergencies. What does this mean? At its March 1999 session, the Judicial Conference of the United States said that judicial emergency means as follows: any vacancy in a district court where the waited filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship, or any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where the waited filings are between 430 to 600 per judgeship. And it goes on. Six hundred per judgeship. And all of the proponents of this bill are saying, well, we need to move the more complex cases to Federal Court because the judges will have time to hear them. If we do not fill these open judgeships, we will not have time to hear these complex cases. In my own district of Colorado, not the largest judicial district in this country, we have one open judgeship that has been open for almost 2 years. We have two more coming up, and we have another coming up in the 10th Circuit. This is in a very small judicial district. And this plays havoc with the ability to hear any case whatsoever. We can put the blame on whoever we want. We can put the blame on the White House. We can put the blame on the Senate or whoever, but the point is the people who are constitutionally required in this country to appoint judges need to do so before we can have true justice for anybody in either a civil or a criminal case, but most especially in the civil cases that are languishing now in our courts, the civil rights cases, the consumer cases, the complex environmental cases. We need to fill these judgeships before we can put even more cases into those courts. So I urge my colleagues, let us put some impetus into filling these vacancies. Let us pass this amendment, at the very least, if we are going to pass this legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) ever know of a situation where we have added more Federal judges when we did not need them in our Federal system? Have we ever actually added Federal judges when the case loads did not warrant it?

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest mistakes we can make during times of great prosperity is to turn our backs on those who have been left out of the economic mainstream. Our great country is experiencing an economic boom the likes of which we haven't seen in a generation. But it would be a grave mistake to forget that too many people have not been included in this financial good fortune. It is times like this when it becomes more important than ever to help those who are most in need. The legislation before us would make huge cuts to the Housing and Urban Development budget, which would drastically affect much needed housing, job creation and economic development programs that play a vital role serving distressed communities. In Colorado, passage of this bill would result in a loss of more than $16 million HUD dollars at a time when affordable housing is becoming increasingly out of reach for more and more people. In my district alone, approximately $5 million would be lost, depriving my constituents of almost 300 jobs. This loss of funds would deny hundreds of low-income families affordable housing, and would take away housing assistance for over 75 families and/or individuals who are homeless or have AIDS. These cuts are not something that people in my district can afford, nor can individuals or families in cities and counties across the country. A booming economy and demand for homes has made the affordable housing market extremely tight in my district, throughout the State of Colorado and across the country. Even in the midst of great prosperity, worst- case housing situations are nearing an all-time high. It should come as no surprise to any of us that even with today's economy there are pockets of deep poverty throughout this country where people are suffering as much as they ever have. This is not time to abandon them. Cutting Section 8 vouchers, funding for Community Development Block Grants, the HOME Investment Partnerships program and HOPE VI grants is absolutely the wrong direction to be going in right now. These cuts will harm our most vulnerable populations and we need to use our vote today to prevent this from happening.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is very straightforward. It simply strikes section 103 from Title I, General Provisions, Department of Justice. In effect, what this amendment does is strike the language in the bill which prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services for women in Federal prison. Unlike most other American women who are denied Federal coverage for abortion services, women in prison have no money, nor do they have access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low wages in prison jobs. In fact, inmates in Federal prisons are completely dependent upon the Bureau of Prisons for all of their needs, including food, shelter, clothing, and all aspects of their medical care. These women are not able to work at remunerative jobs that would enable them to pay for medical services, including abortion services. In fact, last year inmates working on the general pay scale earned from 12 cents to 40 cents per hour, or roughly $5 to $16 per week. The average cost of an early outpatient abortion ranges from $200 to $400. Abortions after the 13th week cost $400 to $700, and abortions after the 16th week go up $100 more per week, ending at about $1,200 to $1,500 in the 24th week. Even if a woman in the Federal prison system earned the maximum wage on the general pay scale and worked for 40 hours a week, she would not have enough money to pay for an abortion in the first trimester if she so chose. After that, the cost of an abortion rises dramatically, and even if she saved her entire salary, she could not afford such an abortion. If Congress denies women in Federal prison coverage of abortion services, it is effectively shutting down the only avenue these women have to pursue their constitutional rights. Let me remind my colleagues that for the last 25 years in this country, women in America do have a constitutional right to abortion. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the eighth amendment of the Constitution. With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend on for health services, women prisoners are in fact coerced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The anti-choice movement in Congress denies coverage for abortion services to women in the military, women who work for the government, poor women, and women insured by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans. I disagree with all of these restrictions. I think they are wrong. But when Congress denies coverage for women who are incarcerated, then Congress is, in effect, denying these women their constitutional right to choose. That is barbaric and that is coercive. Let me just talk a minute about the kind of women who are entering prison. Most are victims of physical and sexual abuse. Two-thirds are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. Many of them are HIV- infected or have full-blown AIDS. Congress thinks that it is in the Nation's best interests to force motherhood on them? I, of course, support the right of women in prison to bring their pregnancies to term, but that is not what this is about. It is about forcing women who do not want to bring their pregnancies to term to have a child. It is downright cruel and foolish to force women in Federal prisons to bear a child in prison when that child is going to be taken from them at birth or shortly thereafter. It is cruel to force a woman who does not have the emotional will to go through her pregnancy with limited prenatal care, isolated from her family and friends, and knowing that the child will be taken from her at birth. What will happen to these children, these unwanted children who are born to prisoners? Will they be raised by relatives who do not care about them? Will they be sent to an agency? What will happen to them? This is one of the most cruel things I think that Congress can do to women who are incarcerated. In 1993, Congress did the right thing when it overturned this barbaric policy. I urge my colleagues to do the same today, and support the DeGette amendment. Let us stop these rollbacks on women's reproductive freedom.

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood amendment ensures that organizations receiving U.S. assistance do not use those funds to perform abortions, promote abortions, or to lobby for or against abortions. I am baffled why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would oppose this amendment and oppose programs which have increased childhood survival rates, reduced maternal death rates, and improved women's reproductive health in the developing world. It is estimated there are 75 million unwanted pregnancies worldwide, mostly in developing countries. The reproductive health services we need to preserve will dramatically reduce these unwanted pregnancies by providing family planning services and will, therefore, reduce unwanted abortions. If my colleagues really support reducing abortions and reducing unwanted pregnancies, vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If they want to eliminate family planning altogether, say so. Do not mask it in some other argument. Just tell us that, and then we can debate on those grounds.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about restoring equal access and equal rights to women and families who devote their careers to public service. There are over 1 million women of child bearing age who are enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that are being denied comprehensive access to reproductive health care. Three years ago, Congress decided that federal employees do not deserve the same rights that private sectors employees have--the right to choose and pay for a health plan that covers a full range of reproductive services, including abortion. Opponents will try to mislead their colleagues and the American people by arguing that this amendment means that taxpayers will pay for abortions. That is absolutely not true. Federal employees purchase private health insurance of which the government contributes a share to the premium. The health benefit, like the salary, belongs to the employee. Employees are given the freedom to choose from a range of health plans and the Delauro amendment merely ensures that an employee can choose a health plan that does or does not cover abortion. Until this anti-choice Congress succeeds in making abortion illegal, they are intent on making it more dangerous and difficult. I believe as should anyone in this body who cares about the health of American women and their families, that abortions should be safe, legal and RARE. Last year, Congress was right to pass legislation to cover prescription contraceptives for federal employees. Let us value the nation's public servants--not turn their health care coverage into yet another political game. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the reproductive health care needs of America's women and vote yes on the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this week, 80 Colorado high school students came to Washington to visit with Members of Congress. These students were literally lobbying for their lives. They eloquently insisted that Congress support child gun safety legislation in the name of the Columbine students who were so senselessly murdered. They were asking Congress to forward at least the three Senate-passed child gun safety provisions to the President's desk so they may return to a safer school next year. After 15 funerals in one year, one student sadly stated to us that he refused to attend another. That is why he was here today, to give us a reality check. In light of these kids' pleas, it seems ironic that here tonight the House is forced on procedural grounds to request the Senate to remove one of only three child gun safety provisions in the bill, a high- capacity ammunition ban. There are, however, some actions this body can take to correct this technicality and ensure the passage of this important legislation to finally stop these deadly weapons from crossing into our country. When a dynamic group of young men and women like the kids from SAFE Colorado emerge to promote something the House has already passed, the least we can do is preserve the few provisions we all in good conscience supported last month. Last month, when the House considered child gun safety legislation, there were many passionate disagreements and little agreement on which amendments we should pass. Just like now, at about midnight or a little after, one provision passed in the middle of the night with little fanfare and no objection on a voice vote. Along with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), I introduced an amendment to the bill, my pending legislation, to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. As I said, this amendment passed with no objection and by a voice vote and strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the underlying juvenile justice bill did not. Therefore, the House has not communicated its will to the Senate or to the conference committee. We need to bring this bill to the floor, and we need to pass it once and for all so that it is included in any final conference committee report that is approved. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, when Congress passed the Violent Crime Control Law Enforcement Act, we thought we banned magazines for semi-automatic weapons which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. However, because of a concession to firearms distributors, high-capacity ammunition magazines manufactured prior to September, 1994, were exempted by Congress. We only agreed to this compromise with the expectation that manufacturers would sell off existing stockpiles. Unfortunately, contrary to the spirit of this compromise, supplies have been seemingly limitless because of uncontrolled imports of magazines from such countries as China and Russia. As a result, these deadly clips are as readily available today as they were in 1994 and the only purpose for these clips is to kill human beings. Denver police officer Bruce Vander Jagt, for example, was shot 15 times in the head, neck and torso by the rapid-fire capabilities of his assailant's weapon. One answer to this technical flaw that we are seeing here tonight, I think, must be a bipartisan solution. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his steadfast commitment to fighting for this ban in the conference committee, but I am concerned that without a strong message from this House, a single conferee could procedurally block the ammunition ban from inclusion in the conference report. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon this House to pass H.R. 1037 which is the bill which has one purpose, and that is to ban these high capacity magazines, to pass it and say to the Senate, include it in the conference report. People will no longer tolerate a country where thousands of people die of gunshot wounds every year and seven school shootings occur within a 2-year period. We all supported this ban before. Let us send a message and support it now again as a full House. Mr. Speaker, I have filed House Resolution 192, a discharge petition, to bring my ammunition magazine ban, H.R. 1037, to the House floor for a vote. It is at the desk, and in a moment I am going to ask for unanimous consent to bring H.R. 1037 to the floor for immediate consideration. If this motion is ruled out of order, I urge all Members from both parties who are for reasonable gun control legislation to sign the discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 1037 which would ban the sale, transfer and possession of high capacity ammunition magazines to the House floor.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, in June, the House of Representatives had the opportunity to pass bipartisan moderate gun safety legislation. We had a chance to make this country a safer place, and we let it slip away. Yesterday, again, we had the opportunity to add child gun safety legislation to the Treasury Postal appropriations bill. Three amendments were offered at the committee markup mirroring the Senate legislation which was passed in May. Unfortunately, all three of these amendments were defeated in committee. The people of this country want child gun safety legislation. I have received many, many letters from mothers, fathers, teachers, ex- military officers, even Republicans urging me to do something, to make schools safer for all of the children and to keep guns out of the hands of children. Tackling this problem of guns should not preclude the need to address our cultural problems. But we need to look at all of these issues to address child safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to do this before the August recess.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, we don't need any more timber roads. Construction of timber roads uses U.S. taxpayer dollars to pay for the business costs of the timber industry, and results in the degradation of soil, water quality and wildlife habitat. We have over 440,000 miles of roads in our National Forests, the vast majority of which are for logging. If you pull out your calculator, Mr. Chairman, you'll find that 440,000 miles is enough to encircle the globe 17 times; that's ten times more road miles than we have in the Interstate Highway System. These timber roads initiate erosion of soil, deposit sedimentation into streams, damage water quality, degrade fish habitat, fragment wildlife habitat, disrupt wildlife migration routes, and destroy the quiet beauty of our National Forests. The taxpayer ends up paying the cost for these damages--and too often the damage cannot be undone. These timber roads also give timber companies subsidized access to our natural resources. I don't think that's smart horse-trading, Mr. Chairman. Over the recent recess I took a three-day hiking and horseback trip through some of the beautiful federal lands in my home state of Colorado. Over each hilltop, crossing each stream and river, coming across beautiful vistas, one after another--I found myself thinking what an unforgivable crime it would be to squander these resources. The next time my colleagues return to their districts, I urge them to take to the natural areas, and see first hand what I'm speaking about. I returned from my trip resolved to redouble my attempts to conserve these resources for future generations. And I believe a good place to start is to eliminate the subsidized creation of more timber roads. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment to protect roadless areas in our National Forest System.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the Bliley amendment. I guess I am pleased, if a little bit puzzled, that this amendment has been coupled, the domestic violence amendment has been coupled with redomestication of mutual insurers. I think the only two things that are the same in these concepts are the word ``domestic.'' But the reason I support this amendment is because it is extremely important to millions of domestic violence victims around this country, many of them women who have been discriminated against, unbelievably, in insurance company underwriting and in claims processing and in rates. We have a woman in Colorado, for example, whose husband tried to murder her by burning down their house. She was almost killed, but she survived. When the insurance company got the claim, they only paid 50 percent because they said she was 50 percent responsible for the house burning down because she was a domestic violence victim. I am disappointed, frankly, that the Committee on Rules did not make in order my amendment with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), a stand alone amendment, which was unanimously supported in the Committee on Commerce, which passed this House last year as part of the House bill, and went on to the Senate. I am saddened that that was not done in its own right. But, frankly, it was not. So, to me, it is important for the millions of domestic violence victims to pass this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, here is another reason to oppose this rule. In the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials and I offered an amendment to prohibit entities that sell insurance from discriminating against victims of domestic violence by selling, underwriting, or paying insurance policies by using domestic violence as an underwriting criteria. This was an amendment unanimously supported in the committee, passed the House last year. It is very important. We should have voted on it by itself. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order by itself and was included as part of a very controversial amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). What we are talking about here is trying to help businesses and trying to help consumers. Instead, we are just getting too cute by half. I think what we need to do is send this rule back to the Committee on Rules so they can get all of these amendments straight, and they can benefit consumers as well as businesses. Then we can all vote for the bill. We can send it on to conference, and we can adopt it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deceptively titled Child Custody Protection Act. This bill pits desperate young women against responsible, caring adults. This bill drives young women into isolation at a time when they are most in need of help. This bill not only violates teens' constitutional rights but also seriously endangers their lives. The last speaker said that it would not really be true that we would have back alley abortions, and people could simply go to a friendly judge. I submit most of the speakers on the other side of this aisle have never stood in the shoes of being a vulnerable and scared young woman who is the victim of incest or who is the victim of child abuse. I submit that that is a decision that is very, very hard for them and it is a decision that has led many young women like Becky Bell, who we have heard of, like Spring Adams who we have heard of, and others to go to back alley abortions because they are scared. We want them to go to trusted adults. We want them to report incest and we want that to be prosecuted, but in the meantime we do not want to deny safe and legal abortions to young women who for whatever reason, we may not even know it, cannot go to the adult. We do not want to criminalize bus drivers or grandmothers or others who have legitimate reasons for taking these young women across State lines. Many of us ran for Congress on platforms of States' rights, and we are all in favor of States' rights all the time here in Congress, unless, of course, they violate our personal social agendas and then we are all for the Federal Government usurping those States' rights. This bill is unconstitutional. It removes the rights of States to legislate around a safe and legal procedure, and that is abortion. Lawrence Tribe, the preeminent legal scholar, has opined that this bill is unconstitutional, and here is what he has said. This amounts to a statutory attempt to force this most vulnerable class of young women to carry the restrictive laws of their home State like the bars of a prison that follow them wherever they go. Such a law violates the basic premises upon which our Federal system is constructed and therefore violates the Constitution of the United States. I urge a no vote on this ill-conceived legislation and I urge everyone in this chamber not to put their own values and views on these vulnerable young women. Have some compassion. Understand some of them may not, for whatever reason, be able to go and do what we would all hope they would do, which is to talk to their parents and talk to their parents before they undertake a decision like this. Please vote no.