Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, well, I guess my constituents and the parents across this country will sleep a lot better this weekend knowing that Congress is solving youth violence by posting the Ten Commandments in the schools and passing child gun safety laws written by the NRA which substantially weaken current laws. Do my colleagues know something, if there is anything we should have learned in the last year it is that the American people are a lot smarter than this, and they will not accept the watered-down bill like this. It is not right to remember the kids at Columbine, to remember the kids across the country this way. Vote yes on Conyers. Vote no on final passage if Conyers fails.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, my esteemed colleagues, we have an opportunity before us today to pass bi-partisan, moderate gun safety legislation. We have a chance to make this country a safer place and we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away. If this body passes weak and watered down gun safety legislation then we have wasted our time. If we do not pass the moderate gun safety measures, equivalent to those that passed in the Senate, we might as well pass nothing. We have a chance to do something meaningful and we cannot afford to fail! When it comes to gun safety, the people of this country are not going to settle for lip service. They want safe schools for their children. They want safe streets. They want to live in a country where thousands of people do not die of gun shot wounds every year. They want to live in a country where there are not seven school shootings within a period of two years. There have been charges from Members on the other side of this issue that those of us who support these gun safety measures are somehow taking political advantage of recent tragedies. Make no mistake. There is only one outside agenda here and that is the agenda of the NRA which has categorically rejected one reasonable proposal after another. The rest of us are attempting to enact smart, sensible gun safety legislation which many of us have been working on throughout our legislative careers. And every school massacre, drive-by shooting and accidental death of a child playing with guns further proves that this is the right thing to do. Sensible gun control is not about chipping away at the Second Amendment. It is not about taking away the right of ordinary citizens to own a gun. Those who tell you otherwise are not being straight with you because this is not about infringing upon the rights of ordinary citizens. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Tightening restrictions on the ability of criminals to purchase weapons of mass destruction does not impede on the Bill of Rights. Making guns safer and keeping them out of the hands of kids does not undermine our constitution. We live in an era of automatic weapons and an increasingly violent culture. Tackling the problems with guns should not preclude the need to address our cultural problems. But to deny that easy access to certain guns is a part of the problem is, quite literally, a deadly mistake. A disturbed person is dangerous. A disturbed person with a gun is deadly. We have before us an opportunity to do right by our constituents. If this House can't pass a meaningful gun safety bill we should be ashamed to go home and face the men, women and children we represent. Vote for the Conyers substitute.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for offering this amendment, which is a bill that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced in both the House and the Senate and have been working on since 1997. My colleagues, this legislation bans the importation of high capacity magazine clips. I would also like to thank my colleague from California and my colleague from Massachusetts for working so hard on this amendment with us. In 1997, a decorated Denver police officer, Bruce Vander Jagt, was shot with a legally obtainable Chinese SKS assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine cartridge. Officer Vander Jagt was shot 15 times in the head, neck and torso by the rapid-fire capabilities of the assailant's weapon, combined with the multiple round cartridges. Numerous other police officers and citizens have been killed across the country because of the availability of these lawfully available, legal ammunition magazines. We cannot be sure whether Officer Vander Jagt would have survived if his assailant had had fewer rounds to fire, but what we can be sure of is that with a 30-round cartridge, death is almost surely going to happen and the only purpose of these cartridges is to kill human beings. Although assault weapons account for about 1 percent of the guns in private hands, they were used in at least 13.1 percent of the 122 fatal law enforcement shootings that took place during a 21-month period in 1994 and 1995. Of those deaths, almost 20 involved high capacity magazines. The same type of high capacity magazines were used in Jonesboro, Arkansas and tragically they were used in Littleton, Colorado, just a few blocks from my district. In 1994, Congress thought that it was banning the production of these large capacity assault style magazines or clips that allow these kind of shots. Unfortunately, the 1994 ban allowed the importation of these magazines to continue. That is why, 5 years later, even though we cannot make new cartridges, we still have a free flow of cartridges coming into this country from China, Russia and other Eastern European countries. Next to me here, you see a recent advertisement from this country for magazines manufactured in Germany. Clearly, although Congress intended for these magazines to be gone from the marketplace by now, we continue to see them sold perfectly legally in gun shops across the country. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that tens of millions of high capacity magazines have been approved for importation since 1994. Between March and July 1998, over 8 million of these magazines, some of them which hold 250 rounds of ammunition in one magazine, were approved for import. We must close this loophole. There is no full explanation that will calm our consciences about why the two boys went on a killing spree in Colorado. And there is no guarantee by this amendment that something like this will never happen again. But these shooters in Colorado had multiple round ammunition cartridges. The security guard on detail at Columbine High School that day did not even have a chance against these two shooters, armed with semiassault weapons and multiple round cartridges. Stopping this kind of ammunition, which only serves to kill human beings, is only a very small part of the solution. But it is an important part. We also need parents, teachers, coaches, ministers and Members of Congress to work with their communities to restore the social fabric that has held us together. But a common sense extension of a ban we thought we passed a few years ago is one way that we can give security to our schools, that we can give security to our parents and that we can give security to the police officers and their families all across this country. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time remaining. Mr. Chairman, by passing this amendment, we are taking a very important step toward keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals and of children. There is no need for these magazine cartridges that carry dozens of bullets, the only purpose of which is to kill human beings and cause massive destruction. Congress was smart to ban their production 5 years ago, and it is now time to take the final step and close our borders to these killing machines. This is a vital, but only a part of the component to our comprehensive approach towards preventing youth violence by enacting moderate targeted child gun safety legislation. As part of a more comprehensive package, banning multiple-round ammunition cartridges will work, but unless we close the gun show loophole and unless we pass child safety locks on guns, this passage will not be complete, and we cannot send the message to our American families that Congress is doing everything it can to keep their children safe in the streets and in their schools. So I thank again the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and I also thank my colleagues for working with me to pass this amendment, but only as part of a more comprehensive piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, we have no objection to this amendment. We thank the gentleman for raising it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am from Colorado, and Columbine High School is just a few blocks from my district. My constituents in Colorado and our constituents across the country are very sensitive about the conclusions that we take from the terrible Columbine shootings of just a few weeks ago. They are very sensitive that their political leaders do not use this tragedy as an excuse to pass some legislation that will really do very little, if nothing, to solve the problem of youth violence in our country today. The truth is that under 300 kids per year in the entire country, most of them Native Americans, are even prosecuted under the Federal laws. So the truth is amendments like this will do nothing to stop the kind of youth violence that we saw at Columbine and that we have seen so tragically at high schools across this country. I suppose that we could send Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to jail for extra time, if they were not dead at this point. I suppose we could give them the death penalty for shooting all these people on the school grounds of Columbine, but that would be little comfort to the parents of the students and the families of the teacher who were killed there. Instead, our constituents demand that we take action in this Congress to help prevent youth violence in a way that will work across the country for the many tens of thousands of kids in this country who need help every year. That is why we need different programs to help across the board. We need to reauthorize the COPS program, we need to fund school safety programs, we need prevention block grants, we need to do the things that will actually help instead of giving the American people the illusion that because we are increasing sentences and doing a few things that will work around the edges on a few Indian reservations that we are doing something. The other thing that my constituents and our constituents are demanding is common sense child gun safety legislation; legislation that will stop the multiple round ammunition cartridges that Klebold and his colleague used; legislation that will stop people from getting guns at gun shows, because these kids got all four of their guns from a gun show, not from the Internet; legislation that will have child safety locks on guns. This is the kind of common sense legislation that begins to help, that we can use as a legislative tool in conjunction with our community action that is nonlegislative that we so desperately need in this solution. Please, let us not marginalize this issue, let us do something that will really help.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. However, I would like to yield when it is appropriate to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, in 1997 Officer Bruce Vanderjagt in Denver was gunned down by a gun using a semiautomatic weapon clip that held far more than 10 rounds of ammunition. People were shocked. We thought we banned these clips in 1995 when we passed the Crime Control Act, but unfortunately these clips, which have the only purpose as killing a human being, are widely available and legally available in gun shops throughout this country because of a loophole in that act. That loophole allows the unrestricted import of these high capacity magazines from countries like China, Russia and Eastern Europe. The Senate had the wisdom to pass legislation stopping this loophole and banning these clips that have the only purpose as killing humans. I urge in the next few days that the House do the same and enact this sensible piece of legislation which will stop these clips that only kill human beings.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am frankly disturbed by the claims that are being made by the proponents of this amendment. The proponents of the amendment say that the drug cannot be used for the sole purpose of abortion or the primary purpose of abortion, but that is not what the text of the amendment says. What the text of the amendment says is none of the funds appropriated shall be used for the testing, development or approval of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. Those words are not in there. But there are more problems than that. The other problems are that there is no recognized definition by the FDA of the words ``chemical,'' ``inducement,'' or ``abortion.'' So nobody is filing applications with the FDA saying we want to use this research solely for the purpose of the chemical inducement of abortion. The truth is the way this amendment is written it would prevent research on many, many drugs which may have a side effect of causing abortion. And if my colleagues believe the last speaker, many people believe that that is appropriate. Many people believe that it is a worthwhile societal goal to have millions of cancer victims die in order to stop what may be abortions. That is unacceptable both from a human and a scientific standpoint. The truth is under this amendment we would be banning research of drugs which would cause miscarriages by treating cancer, hypertension, cirrhosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and even some vaccines. We cannot sacrifice scientific research into abortion, which is legal, or equally importantly into cancer and all these other things simply because of a political agenda. And that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a political agenda. And the reason this amendment is written so broadly is because there are people who would ban drugs whose primary purpose is for other purposes, like cancer research, in order to stop abortion. And that is wrong. Defeat the amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the recent spate of school shootings has left us all saddened, stunned and determined to do something. It is time for all of us to respond to the outrage of the American people. The public wants us to protect children from random gun violence, and they want action on child gun safety legislation. We need to act and we need to act now. Every day we wait, another 13 children die at the hands of a gun. I do not believe that legislation is the only solution to this complex problem of youth violence, but I do believe that the easy availability of firearms is a clear contributing problem. That is why my Democratic colleagues and I urge the leadership to bring three reasonable gun safety bills to the House floor this week. These three bills are similar to the legislation enacted in the Senate and are commonsense solutions to some of the problems we face. First is a bill that requires background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows. Second, a bill that requires all handguns to be fitted with child safety locks. And, finally, banning large ammunition magazines. Let us do it this week.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Columbine High School is just a few blocks from my congressional district. Columbine High School had its graduation this last weekend, honoring those kids who graduated with their class and honoring those who could not be there. No one would be so shallow as to suggest that the only solution to these terrible shootings we have had in high schools around the country is gun control. But a troubled youth who does not have a gun is a troubled youth. A troubled youth with a gun is a killer. I have been inundated with calls. Many of my colleagues have been inundated with calls from around the country, from suburban parents, moms and dads, from urban and rural parents, moms and dads, asking the simple question: Why cannot we do something, a little something, to keep guns out of the hands of kids? No one believes that children in an unsupervised way, especially in or around a school, should have a gun. There are several proposals that we can pass on behalf of the American public and on behalf of American children, simple proposals which will give safety for guns and kids. The first proposal is one which will make gun shows comply with the same laws that gun shops comply with. Gun shop owners, to sell a gun to somebody, have got to conduct a background check. They have got to have some identification to know that the person buying the gun is 18 years old or older. They have to have some kind of registration and way to trace that they sold the gun. Gun shows can have numerous dealers which are not registered and which can sell guns to anybody for any amount of money, no questions asked. One year ago this last June, a staff member from my Denver office walked into a gun show in the Denver area, the Tanner Gun Show. The Tanner Gun Show is held 10 times a year. He bought a gun, no questions asked, cash on the barrel head, $450. It was a semi-automatic weapon. The two boys at Columbine High School bought their guns at the Tanner Gun Show, the very same gun show we had been at just a few months before. Another thing we can do before we leave this week is we can pass legislation banning once and for all multiple-round ammunition cartridges. Why on earth does one need a cartridge of 15 or 25 or 30 bullets to hunt? One does not need those. Those cartridges are designed to kill human beings; and kill human beings they did, at Columbine High School. They kill police officers around the country every year. We thought we banned them in 1995. But because of a loophole in the law, these cartridges are still legally available, and that loophole needs to be closed. Last, but certainly not least, Congress can pass legislation this week which will establish child safety locks on guns. This would prevent kids who should not have guns from getting them and using them. This is a common sense proposal. Parents across the country want to know why Congress has not enacted this law already. As I said, Columbine High School's graduation was last Friday. Many more schools will still be in session through next week. Congress should send a message to the parents across America that we care; that part of the solution, although not all of the solution, is that Congress will take steps to enact child gun safety laws, not next month, not next fall, not sometime in the future, but now, before school is out, to begin to ensure the safety of every child across America. That is why I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) taking on this important task tonight. That is why I intend to work this week to let our Speaker and everyone in this Congress know Congress must discuss child gun safety legislation and pass common sense, narrowly drawn rules before we leave for the Memorial Day recess. The only and best way we can memorialize these kids this week in Congress is to pass legislation before Memorial Day.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the true emergency spending contained in this conference agreement: Adequate funding for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) military actions in Kosovo; support for operating loans for America's farms and farm workers, who are trying to provide food for our tables without going bankrupt; relief for our Central American neighbors who were devastated by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges; and relief for our Oklahoma and Kansas residents who were the victims of terrible tornadoes. These are emergencies that I believe Congress should be acting on in an expeditious manner. But Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the $15 billion funding package proposed in this Conference Agreement for H.R. 1141, because of the non-emergency items that are attached to it. There were plenty of non-emergency items attached by the House; and there were plenty of non-emergency items attached by the other body; but finally, there were even more non-emergency items attached by the conferees we sent to the conference table. For example, the President asked for $6 billion in emergency funding for Kosovo-related military and humanitarian needs; the House doubled that amount to $12 billion; and our conferees somehow wrestled that up to $15 billion. It's almost as if we think the longer we wait the more ``late penalties'' we have to pay. Given even more delay, I'm afraid this Conference Agreement would become the supplemental that ate the surplus. Were our colleagues saving their so-called emergencies for a rainy day? On this rainy day, Mr. Speaker, it's raining money, which this provision is siphoning out of the Social Security trust fund. And I cannot support that misuse of power and abuse of the public's trust.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I believe, with many of my colleagues, that frivolous litigation is already a real concern to the business community and needs to be addressed by Congress. But the legislation, the underlying bill that is before us, would make dramatic changes in Federal, procedural, and substantive law at both the Federal and State levels. This example just given by the previous speaker is the perfect example. There is no other kind of lawsuit where you have to plead fraud in the way that the underlying bill contemplates. Why should we do it just for one class of lawsuits? We need to make sure that year 2000 liability legislation we pass does not undercut incentives that will encourage companies to fix year 2000 problems. The amendment that we have before us would encourage entities to fix year 2000 problems now, and would also provide a method for weeding out any future frivolous lawsuits, while providing an outlet for legitimate claims. I also think that it would be foolish to establish an unwarranted precedent to limit damage awards in product liability cases, yet another example of how we are changing jurisprudence. I think it is important to discourage frivolous lawsuits that may come as a result of the year 2000 glitch, but this body should not pass overbroad legislation that will hurt both businesses and consumers who have legitimate claims. One of the most important provisions in the substitute specifies that those defendants determined to be only minimally liable for the year 2000 consumer problem will be held to be only proportionally liable by the court. This is a far more palatable alternative to completely eliminating joint and several liability altogether, which is what the underlying bill does. The substitute provides that the court will have discretion to determine whether a defendant that is minimally liable will be held jointly and severally liable. There is little disagreement about encouraging resolution of year 2000 problems without resorting to litigation. The amendment strikes the needed balance, and it can pass and it can be signed into law. The year 2000 is just a little over 6 months away. Congress needs to act now to pass a law everybody can agree with, instead of dithering around for the next 6 months trying to figure out how we are going to expedite resolution of the year 2000 glitch, and expedite this resolution for the business community and the consumer as well.

Mr. DeGETTE

Mr. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for adequate funding for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) military actions in Kosovo. I support the Clinton Administration's request for $6 billion to stop Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of terror, but I cannot support the $12 billion funing package proposed in H.R. 1664. The U.S. role in NATO must be unflinching. The Administration's $6 billion spending request is too important to be bogged down in political maneuvers of non-urgent defense spending. Let us pass the $6 billion our military needs to continue operating the NATO effort and then debate the merits of additional, non-emergency military funding in another, less urgent forum.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, and specifically to applaud the East High School team that has come to Washington this year to represent Colorado in the national finals. These young scholars have worked diligently to make it to the finals and their hard work has gained them a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are: Sarah Blum-Barnett, John Boisclair, Kristin Brauer, Elizabeth Clarke, Andrew Cundiff, Jocelyn Dudley, Michelle Ford, Lindsay Gilchrist, Michael Kaplan, Beth Linas, Natalie Lindhorst-Ballast, Brett Lockspeiser, Elizabeth McCartney, Anne McWilliams, Adam Mueller, Dan Murphy, Tristan Nelson, Brandi Raiford, Nathan Rose, Jeremy Schulman, Jeffrey Seversen, Ellen Strickland, Allison Tease. Additionally, I would like to commend their teacher Deanna Morrison who deserves much of the credit for the success of this great team and recognize both the District Coordinator, Loyal Darr, and the State Coordinator, Barbara Miller. The ``We the People. . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by the students acting as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee'' made up of a panel of judges acting as Members. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I know first hand how well this program works because I was a volunteer coach for years at a high school back in my district in Denver, whose students have done extraordinarily well in the We the People. . . . competitions over the last decade. East High School has been among the top ten finalists 9 times in the last 11 years, and they won the competition in 1992. Once again, I commend the East team for winning the State competition and I wish them the best of luck in the upcoming competition. I know Colorado will be well represented in the finals.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Denver leader Richard F. ``Regis'' Groff whose leadership in Denver and throughout the world has enhanced so many people's lives. Regis Groff has contributed, not only to Denver through his teaching and civic involvement, but also throughout the world by traveling and working with foreign countries on humanitarian issues. His international efforts have led him to many countries including Nigeria, Germany, Jamaica, Israel, China and South Africa to work on a variety of important issues. In Israel he worked on improving the Black-Jewish dialogue. He traveled to South Africa on a fact finding mission and, visited China with a small group of fellow legislators as part of a good will tour. Regis Groff, who is now the Executive Director of Metro Denver Black Church Initiative, first came to Denver to get his Masters from the University of Denver. He taught history classes in the Denver Public Schools (DPS) until 1977, when he began working as an Intergovernmental Relations Specialist for DPS. From there he became the Community Affairs Coordinator for (DPS). From 1974 to 1988 he served in the Colorado State Legislature. In 1993 he worked as Consultant to the Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Denver and in 1994 he became Director of the Youthful Offenders System, where he targeted youthful offenders of crimes involving deadly weapons. His program vigorously worked to break down gang affiliations and instill hope and dignity to youth. This is not the only work Groff has done to better Denver communities, but he has so many accomplishments, it is hard to list them all. He was Vice President of the Denver Federation of Teachers, the Senate Minority Leader for the Colorado State Senate and Vice President of the National Democratic Leadership Caucus to highlight a few accomplishments in his vast resume of community involvement. The work he has done on behalf of the community has not gone unnoticed. He has received many awards for his efforts such as, Legislator of the Year Award from the Associated Press, the Appreciation Award in recognition of his work for the youth of Denver and the Distinguished Service Citation award presented by the United Negro College Fund to name a few. Regis Groff's important work and selfless acts over the past two decades is what has inspired me to recognize and applaud his efforts today.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this tragedy touches all of us deeply. My district is only three blocks from Columbine High School. I know families who have students at Columbine. They are my neighbors and they are my friends. These students are also the future of our community. So there is immeasurable sorrow in Denver, in my home State of Colorado and throughout America. The shootings at Columbine High School transcend party lines, political boundaries and geographic barriers. Each one of us here today shares the grief and sadness shared by parents and students in Littleton. We struggle to find the words to say. But this tragedy is beyond words; really, it is beyond experience. It leaves us shaken and numb. We try to understand it, but it is beyond understanding. The unimaginable has happened. We are left trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. Somehow we must make sense of all of this. Many of us went to high schools like Columbine. I went to Denver South High School in the turbulent 1970's, and Columbine is just a short drive from there. But I did not encounter executions in the library and bombs in the stairwells. I knew students excluded by popular groups. The truth is, many Members of Congress probably would not have won popularity contests in high School. Yet what we are trying to confront today is the violent turn of our culture, the rationality behind students with guns, and the decision to use those guns on classmates and friends. Sadly, we must conclude that this country has become more violent in the past quarter century. We are more accepting of violence. We are more tolerant of its manifestation. We have lost some of our natural anger against violence. Violence is glorified in the media, in songs, in movies, in books and on the web. We have lost some of our social cohesion, where neighborhoods are now just where we live, where cities have become impersonal places. We have received a steady diet of nihilism, cynicism and skepticism, with little understanding of how that divides us, fragments us and transforms us. Now we often hear of a murder or robbery and shrug our shoulders saying, ``Oh, well, what can you expect?'' But violence is not part of life. It is not inevitable. We know better, or at least we should know better. Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, our own colleague John Lewis and others have preached the importance of nonviolence. When will we learn? When will we prize the wisdom of nonviolence over the hasty mistake of gunfire? We must speak out against those who pedal violence to our young students. We must shine the light of truth on those who believe violence is the answer, when it is only failure. We must no longer accept violence as the way of life, when it can only end a life. Many Americans look to this House as a barometer of our national attitudes and culture. Today, our sorrow and anger can make us more thoughtful, more dedicated and more forthright in addressing violence in this country. I hope it will. I hope we remember how we feel right now in the days and months to come, when we have valuable opportunities to work with community leaders, clergy, educators and social workers to institute real dialogue toward nonviolent dispute resolution. We also need to do whatever we can to eliminate the ability of young people to obtain guns. It is frightening that one-third of the high school students in this country know someone who owns a gun. A troubled youth without a gun is dangerous; a troubled youth with a gun is deadly. Those who wish to address youth violence in this country cannot refuse to discuss limiting access to guns for kids if they truly care about solving this crisis in America. As a member of this House, but, most importantly, as a mother and a resident of Denver and Colorado, I extend my deepest personal sympathies to the students, teachers and families at Columbine High School. Today, the country stands united in your grief. We all share in your tragedy.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of six African American leaders in Denver who fulfill vital roles in their communities. It is to commend these outstanding citizens that I rise to honor Rev. Paul Martin, Gloria Holliday, Rev. James Peters, Jr., Menola Neal Upshaw, Rev. Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., and Arie Parks Taylor. Reverend Paul Martin is the Chair of the Denver Urban League and also Senior Pastor at Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church. In conjunction with his church, he has laid the groundwork for a senior citizen's manor and remains active in creating and finding more housing for seniors. He has not only protected the interests of the elderly, but in conjunction with the Urban League, he has ignited the dreams of youth as well. Another example of this commitment is his work to open the Redeemer Alternative School for pre-kindergarten through 8th grade age children in Los Angeles, CA. Currently, Reverend Martin is on the frontlines of a movement to redevelop neglected Denver neighborhoods. Through his work with the Stapleton Development Corp., he has helped take strides in the redevelopment of the old Stapleton airport site in central Denver. The Reverend is also working conscientiously to revitalize Northeast Denver. It comes as no surprise to me or any other member of our community that Reverend Martin was recently presented with the Humanitarian Race Relations Award by the city and county of Denver. Gloria Holliday has amassed a long history of hard work on behalf of the African American community. In the 1960's, she served as secretary to legendary civil rights activist, Medgar Evers. Working with Evers on voter registration and integration, she organized the first economic boycott of racist business merchants in Jackson, MS, and fought valiantly to desegregate hotels in Atlanta, GA. Her desegregation efforts continued in Denver when she confronted and helped integrate retailers like King Soopers, Safeway and Denver Dry Goods Co. Gloria has been a long time Democratic Party activist. She now serves on the Board of the Regional Transportation District (RTD) where she has been instrumental in creating an ad wheel that won the highest American Public Transit Association award. She also won the Black Women for Political Action's Award for Politics based on her work for RTD and her own personal endeavors. Not surprisingly, Gloria is also known for her outstanding work with youth. For young and old, she is a pillar in the community. Reverend James D. Peters, Jr. also has a long history of civic leadership. This commitment has earned him several notable honors, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Special Service Award and the Outstanding Service Award, presented to him by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Reverend Peters worked for Dr. King in Connecticut where he raised money for civil rights causes. These funds were used to organize bus trips from Connecticut to the South for demonstrations and for bailing protestors out of prison among other things. In Denver, Reverend Peters helps to fulfill both the spiritual and humanitarian needs of Denverites through his work as Pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church and as a member of the Denver Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. As a member of that board, he assists 22,000 public housing residents in enhancing the living conditions of their homes. His devotion and service to the community have earned him several accolades. Since his arrival in Denver, the Anti-Defamation League recognized him with its Civil Rights Award and the Denver City Council cited him for his leadership in Denver. Menola Neal Upshaw has devoted herself to the city of Denver as the President of the Denver branch of the NAACP and as a teacher and administrator. Mrs. Upshaw taught elementary school students in Oklahoma City, East St. Louis, Illinois and Denver. She served as a Denver Public Schools administrator for 26 years. The Denver Public Schools recognized her outstanding work as a teacher and administrator with a cherished award, the Teacher of the Year Award. Menola also won the NAACP Legend of the Year Award and Woman of the Year Award. She has been a member of the NAACP since she was 9 years old and the president of the Denver branch since 1994. She has won additional awards for her parenting skills and work with her church. She won the Parent of the Year Award from Ottawa University and the Most Valiant Woman award given by the Zion Baptist Church, where she served as Sunday School Superintendent for 25 years. Reverend Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., enriches Denver working as the pastor of Shorter Community African Methodist Episcopal Church and also through his own community efforts. His contributions to his parishioners have included the rebuilding and relocation of his church, containing education facilities and a multi-family housing complex. He is a past president of the Denver Ministerial Alliance and Methodist Ministers Fellowship in Denver and has served as a member of the Executive Board of Denver's Council of Churches. He has also held important secular positions. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Directors of Denver-Metro Push and is the organizer of PUSH-Los Angeles. In addition, former Governor Roy Romer appointed him the first African American on the State of Colorado Wildlife Commission and to the Colorado Commission for Prenatal Care. I would also like to recognize Arie Parks Taylor who has devoted a lifetime to improving Denver. Arie Taylor is often compared to Bella Abzug, a former Congresswoman from New York, who is remembered for her custom of wearing hats and her advocacy for the disadvantaged. Arie wears hats as well, but it is her compassion for people that helped Colorado so much. Arie served Colorado as a State Representative for District 7 for 12 years. While in office she passed legislation amending fair housing and civil rights laws. She also sponsored legislation to help people with hemophilia and sickle cell anemia find care. She caught the eye of the Nation when she served three times as a delegate at the National Democratic Convention, where she protested the seating of all-white southern delegations. Not only did she work in these positions, but she retired in 1995 as Denver's first African American Clerk and Recorder. Please join me in commending Rev. Paul Martin, Gloria Holliday, Rev. James Peters, Jr., Menola Neal Upshaw, Rev. Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., and Arie Parks Taylor for their courage and fortitude. It is the strong leadership they present in their everyday lives that make them so beloved in our community.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit. H.R. 4 is a bill whose time has not come. It is a bill whose time, arguably, may never come. As General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in February of this year, ``The simple fact is that we do not yet have the technology to field a national missile defense. We have, in fact, put some $40 billion into the program over the last 10 years. But today we do not technologically have a bullet that can hit a bullet.'' General Shelton, testifying only 44 days ago before the House Armed Services about this issue, continues: ``The technology to hit a bullet with a bullet remains elusive.'' Yet today the House is considering legislation that presumes this technology does exist, when it in fact does not. H.R. 4 presumes this missile defense system can be developed and deployed, when in fact after tens of billion dollars in research, in General Shelton's words, it ``remains elusive.'' If General Shelton's summation is not simple enough, I offer an analogy which easily explains my opposition to H.R. 4: the cart should not be put before the horse. The decision to deploy a National Missile Defense system should not be made until there is a clear capability to address a potential national security threat. How many times has a defense technology been rushed to the field in a spectacular shower of funding from Congress, only to be declared obsolete on the day when the last bolt is tightened or just as a system is declared ``fully operational''? With all the good intentions of this Congress to take steps to preserve national security, there are too many questions regarding the readiness of this technology to consider beginning deployment of a National Missile Defense. Let our research scientists, engineers and military commanders finish their job, first. If there is a national security threat that can be addressed with a proven national missile defense technology, bring that evidence before Congress, and then let's decide whether or not it makes sense to deploy such a system. But until then, I urge my colleagues to not get ahead of the horse. Equally as troubling to me is the fact that H.R. 4 in its brevity fails to recognize the arms control gains we have made under the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. The deployment of a system as prematurely proposed by this bill may in fact put us in noncompliance with this treaty, a treaty that has slowed arms development for nearly 30 years. I worry that this bill could send the wrong message to Russia and China, who might likely see it as a signal to start the arms race again. It might also be viewed by other nations as an invitation to join in. As H.R. 4 is silent on these issues, it provides an oversimplistic policy for an extremely complex, interdependent group of concerns. The 15-word, one sentence policy statement in H.R. 4 grossly trivializes the importance of this issue of national defense. Without serious consideration of the full ramifications of this policy, and without the opportunity to amend this bill to do justice to this national security issue, I cannot support this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Congress acted responsibly to reduce government waste last week, voting 419-1 to pass H.R. 436, the Government Waste, Fraud & Error Reduction Act. This common-sense measure empowers federal agencies to collect delinquent debt and it bars individuals from receiving aid or participating in federal programs if they have refused to pay back money borrowed from the government. This tough-on-debt approach is justified for individuals who knowingly seek the assistance of the Federal Government, but choose to defraud taxpayers by not paying back their debts. On a yearly basis, Congress will receive reports from federal agencies detailing debt collection procedures and outstanding debts of $1 million or more. With reinvigorated, streamlined debt collection mechanisms in place, the Federal Government will be able to use hard-earned taxpayer money more efficiently. One important provision of H.R. 436 will allow social security benefits to be scaled back for individuals who owe large amounts of child support. For many working and single-parent families, child support payments are essential ingredients for success in raising children. I believe this bill will ease the burden on working families. I was pleased to support this legislation and make good on my pledge to reduce government waste whenever possible.