Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be standing here today with one of the most esteemed Members of Congress, and also one of the best sports in Congress, the gentleman from Atlanta (Mr. Lewis) to celebrate our Denver Broncos' victory last Sunday. The Dirty Birds made a valiant effort, I say to my colleague, but our mighty Broncos were just too strong. The victory was sweet. Its spoils are even sweeter. I would like to thank the Congressman from Atlanta and his staff for delivering the month's supply of Coca-Cola and the peanuts to our office. Very sweet indeed. A sweet win for Mike Shannahan, who has proven once again he knows football better than any other coach in the NFL. A sweet victory for Terrell Davis, who continually racks up consecutive 100 yard games. But this does set a tradition of Super Bowl dominance. We need a three- peat. We need our quarterback, John Elway, to come back for the three- peat next year. I would like to thank my colleague the gentleman from Atlanta (Mr. Lewis) for being such a good sport. We are looking forward to seeing the Dirty Birds in the Super Bowl, and when we three-peat, we know the gentleman will be just as good a sport then as he is now.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. We have heard a lot today and in the past weeks about the rule of law, but that is not the standard for impeachment. We are all sworn to uphold the rule of law, and there is still a remedy in this situation for the President's action under the rule of law: Criminal prosecution. The President lied to us, but this vote is neither about absolution or punishment. The only question we face is whether the President's actions, regardless of how wrong or potentially criminal, rise to the standard our constitutional forefathers set for us. We have been told by the majority of constitutional scholars that the President's actions do not fall within the meaning of high crimes or misdemeanors but yet we persist. We have divided this House with partisan politics, sewing mistrust and exposing the darkness in our own hearts. It started with the first vote of the 105th Congress to censure the Speaker, and it has continued to this day to the vote to impeach the President. With all of the lost opportunities in between, it is no wonder we are losing the public's trust. After today, when the impeachment frenzy subsides, we will survey the damage to our own political system, we will have unnecessarily crippled the presidency for a generation to come. We will have wantonly weakened this House of Representatives reaching a new low in partisan rancor. We will have substantially subverted the Constitution which was designed to reflect the will of the people in a republic, not to promote a political party in what is slipping towards a parliamentary system. We will intentionally have ignored the business of the American people both at home and abroad, and we will have changed the political climate where decency, privacy and civility have been sacrificed on the altar of political greed, cynicism and shame. This vote is unworthy of our institution. We will pay for it in the years to come. We will undermine the ability of the next generation of American Presidents to lead us through the enormous challenges that face the 21st century, just as we did after the last impeachment of a President over 100 years ago. While this President must answer for his actions, history will judge us for our actions, too. As legislators, as representatives and as citizens, we have an enormous responsibility, and I fear that we are on the brink of disgracing the public's trust. I urge Members to vote against impeachment on principle, mindful of our oath of office, understanding our duty to our constituents, to the Constitution and to the future.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gloria E. Holliday, a member of the board of directors for the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the E-470 Authority, and the Keep Denver Beautiful Board in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Holliday was recently honored by the Colorado Black Women for Political Action (CBWPA) as the 1998 recipient of the Politics Award. Ms. Holliday came to Denver after receiving her Bachelor of Arts degree from Jackson State College. Born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, Ms. Holliday began her lengthy career in various political activities at the age of 4, when she was forced to ride in the back of the bus. Since that time, she has been privileged to work with several local and nationally renowned and distinguished civil rights leaders including Clarence Mitchell Sr., Earl V. Dickerson of Chicago, Roy Wilkins Jr., and late Irving Andrews, Medgar Evers, Walter White, A.J. Noel Sr., and Mrs. Gladys Noel Bates. She has worked and participated in economic boycotts, the historical desegregation struggles of hotels in Atlanta, Georgia, voter registration drives, and helped to change the hiring practices toward achieving a more integrated work force at major retailers in Denver, including the old Denver Dry, King Soopers, Safeway, and several movie theaters. She actively fought for funding for the businesses affected by the Light Rail construction in the historic Five Points area and continues to oversee the efforts of the RTD Board to increase financial support for these businesses. Ms. Holliday is currently a member of the NAACP, the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver, and the East Montclair Association. A member of Macedonia Baptist Church, she sings with the Martin Ensemble and Mass Choir. She is also a vocalist with the Denver Jazz Orchestra (DJO) and a member of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. I am honored to join together with CBWPA and the Denver metropolitan community in recognizing Ms. Holliday, who continues to serve both her professional and personal affiliations with strength, purpose, and integrity.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. While there are a number of laudable items in this product, I am very concerned that we are cutting $20.8 billion or nearly one-third of our budget surplus to pay for it. The budget surplus should be dedicated to preserving the Social Security trust fund, not padding the Pentagon with $9 billion in extraneous spending that it did not request. A throughtful budget process would have allowed us to fund these programs within our spending caps. Despite the egregious process and irresponsible budgeting that went into this bill, there are a number of important programs funded in it. My district will receive much needed transportation dollars to fund the continued improvements of the Mousetrap and Broadway Viaduct as well as money to build an annex to the Denver federal courthouse. It will receive money for important medical research at both the Colorado Health Sciences Center and National Jewish Medical Research Center. I am also encouraged to see the Congress making an important downpayment to hire 100,000 new teachers in our nation's secondary and elementary schools. I am, however, disappointed that the bill failed to include what I believe is an even more important effort in education-- modernizing our schools. I am pleased that the looming Y2K crisis is finally being addressed by the Congress in this bill and after initially being cut by the Republicans, that the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) was fully funded. But it is no surprise that in a 4,000 page, forty pound bill that there are some good items. Yet I cannot defend violating our budget agreements of last year and raiding the surplus to pay for last minute political handouts or pork programs. We made a commitment to our seniors to dedicate the budget surplus to preserve the Social Security trust fund. This bill breaks that commitment.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, those of us in the West believe that we have a special caring for individual liberties and individual expressions and that we care about this more than anybody else. That is why the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard has shaken all of us in the West so to our core. I want to thank and commend the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) for swiftly acting to denounce the deplorable actions of Matthew Shepard's murderers. I know that all of our thoughts and prayers in the House of Representatives and in Washington in general go out to the Shepard family and to Matthew's friends during this very difficult time. The United States has come a long way in combating the prejudice and discrimination that is such a tragic part of our history. But what happened last Friday night at a ranch in Wyoming shows we still have work to do before our country is truly the country of freedom and justice for all. Something like this could occur anywhere. Gay men and lesbians all across the country live in fear that some tragic and brutal crime like this will happen to them. And when an appalling crime like this happens, it proves that this fear is not unjustified. Sometimes it takes a tragic and brutal crime like this to point out that every day in cities across our country, gay men and lesbians are being beaten and brutalized simply because of their sexual orientation. I want to share an example of this that is even sadder. As Matthew Shepard lay dying in a Colorado hospital in Fort Collins, a nearby State university was holding its annual homecoming parade. And on one of the floats in that parade, someone actually stuck a scarecrow that was covered with anti-gay graffiti. Mr. Speaker, even if Matthew Shepard had not been left beaten and hanging on a fence the night before, this incident, and the countless incidents that happen throughout this country, are unacceptable. There is still much education that needs to be done. Discrimination of any kind is abhorrent. And this horrible incident illustrates once again that prejudice is a terrible thing, no matter who the target is. Everyone in this country deserves to pursue the American dream and that includes gay men and lesbians. Individual freedom and liberty are what makes this country like no other, and we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to our country to refuse to accept bias of any kind. For those who would stand in the way of an individual's right to live as they see fit, I say, and I hope my colleagues will join me, ``There is no room in this country for your kind of bigotry.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why we must act swiftly and strongly at the Federal level, at the State level, at the local level, and every level of government to pass strong hate crimes legislation saying this is not the way we operate in this country. I urge people from all walks of life, all political parties, all genders, straight and gay, to speak out against this horrible crime. Those of us who seek equality and justice far outnumber those who are gripped by fear and intolerance. We must make our voices drown out their voices. Mr. Speaker, we will not be held hostage to individuals who act on the basest and most animal of instincts. We will continue the fight against hatred. We will continue to resist violence. Last night at the vigil, Matthew's friend said that Matthew always wanted to make his life mean something, that he always wanted to have an impact on society. I pledge that we will do everything to see that happen. But Matthew's friend also said: The price here was too great. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend and classmate.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has been working on this issue for many years.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. I have opposed this bill in committee and on the floor because I think that it takes a Federal meat axe to a problem that States ought to be able to solve with a State solution scalpel. I oppose this bill today not only to protect investors and to give States time to deal with this problem themselves but because along with many other problems, the conference committee stripped out important language that improved this bill. One of the things that was stripped out, a noncontroversial or sort of noncontroversial bipartisan amendment I passed in committee that would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct an analysis of the whole issue, including the extent to which the preemption of State securities laws affects the protection of securities investors of the public interest. This study was important to determine both what the effect is on securities investors and also to determine what the true effect is on these lawsuits going into State courts. I am concerned just like everybody else that many of these lawsuits are being pursued by a very small number of attorneys who are only looking to make money for themselves at the expense of newly emerging high tech firms. These lawsuits can cost the company millions of dollars while they are being settled and the result is the diversion of resources away from designing of new products and the creation of jobs. The trend is disturbing but the trend is not overwhelming. The issue needs to be addressed but it needs to be addressed at the State level. The alleged mass migration of securities fraud class action cases to State court has actually been quite limited and as often happens in a body like Congress, when I asked for statistics about this huge mass of lawsuits going from Federal court to State courts, the evidence was either nonexistent or surprisingly small. The numbers of suits and the number of plaintiffs in the State courts are actually quite small. Both the proponents and opponents of this bill agreed that the numbers of suits have actually gone down at the State level in the past year. I believe we would be setting a dangerous precedent by blatantly preempting State securities laws, many of which were enacted before the 1933 Federal Securities Act in order to address a very discrete, small problem that exists in basically one State, California. Those who consider themselves supportive of State rights and those who consider themselves to be Federalists should consider the very dangerous precedent we would set if we pass this legislation. If the industry is so concerned about the effect of going into State court, I would suggest that they go to the State legislatures in these very few States and ask the legislatures to change the law. S. 1260 raises significant Federalism concerns and I think that it is quite clear that more time is needed to assess the effects of securities litigation reform before we willy-nilly eliminate all of the State blue sky laws. Eliminating State remedies for fraud before knowing whether the courts will end up consistently interpreting the 1995 act in a way that provides victims with a viable means to recover their losses, this bill risks not only harming innocent investors but also undermines public confidence in our securities markets. This is an issue that needs to be addressed but it needs to be addressed on a State-by-State level. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1754, the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1998. I deeply appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Florida, Chairman Bilirakis, of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, the ranking Democratic member of the House Commerce Committee. They have worked innumerable hours to reach a consensus on this legislation and to bring it to the floor today. In particular, I wish to thank my colleagues for their leadership and support in securing much needed changes in Title VIII, the Nursing Education Act provisions. One of the most important improvements which my colleagues and I on the subcommittee fought so aggressively for was to restore the meaning of an Advance Practice Nursing Degree. Prior to our changes, the Senate bill, for the first time ever, would have established a federal definition of Advanced Practice Nurses which would put clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, nurse- midwives, and nurse practitioners into the same category as non- clinicians. This would not only have set a bad precedent but also have broad implications for the future of nurse education funding and advanced practice nursing at the state level and in the private sector. For instance, in my own state of Colorado, we fought very hard to preserve the meaning of an advanced practice nursing degree. It would be dangerous of us to mislead the public into believing that all nurses with a degree beyond the baccalaureate level are equivalent and have clinical training. I am also pleased by the inclusion of a ``hold harmless'' provision to protect nurse practitioner and nurse midwife funding levels. S. 1754 as passed in the Senate, consolidated funding for nurse education and eliminates specific funding line authority for nurse practitioners. This would have jeopardized the ability of nurse practitioners to continue providing primary care services in underserved rural areas and inner cities. I urge the Health Resources and Services Administration to give special recognition to nurse practitioners who provide primary care when it develops the new health care workforce study for nurses. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in urging swift passage of this vital professional education program.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, historians note that those who are in the middle of history often do not themselves recognize it. Today should not be about polls. Today should not be about the upcoming November election, and even today should not be about the serious matter of sexual misconduct. But with all due respect to my friends, that is exactly what today is all about. This is only the third time in the history of this country that we are talking about opening impeachment proceedings against our President, and I am shocked at how many people, including some in this chamber, take this serious matter so lightly, even gleefully. We are witnessing a stampede to justice, my friends, and like so many stampedes, when the trail dust settles, we will leave chaos and we will leave ruin. This is a time for statesmanship. Each one of us must independently assess the best direction for this House and this country, and I will say it is not an open ended, never ending, witch-hunt without any limits. We need to carefully consider the Starr report. We need to set a guideline and then we need to move forward with the serious, serious business of this country. Mr. Speaker, the House is about to decide whether to exercise one of the most grave constitutional steps within our power: hearings concerning the impeachment of the President. This is the most serious decision we can make, next to a declaration of war. It is legislative, moral, and civic duty to caution the House to carefully weigh this dangerous, perhaps necessary step. Like so many of you, my political conscience was formed during the Watergate scandal and I applauded the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. versus Nixon that the President ``is not above the law.'' The President, whoever he or she may be, is not above the law. But my political conscience was also informed by reading ``Profiles in Courage,'' where John Kennedy, who well-knew the passions that govern partisan political discourse, discussed the failed attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Johnson was saved from impeachment by the courageous actions of several senators who withstood the deep and intense partisan public hatred of a president attempting to unite a divided country. Most historians would agree that the impeachment of Johnson would have been a constitutional, economic, and political catastrophe. In fact, the partisan bickering, motivated by the hope of political advantage, was a dark, shameful moment in American history which affected the national agenda for decades afterwards; a moment we may soon repeat if we do not learn from our history. This is the time to ask what actions will best serve our country. Hasty decisions in a mob-mentality will not serve the interests of our constituents. Frankly, I have heard little about the long-term consequences of an impeachment hearing, especially if we ultimately decide not to impeach the President. The Watergate scandal undermined the institutional authority of our political system for a generation. Therefore, we must carefully weight what we do now, because it will have consequences for at least a generation to come. Yes, we have a President who has lied to you and me and the American public. I'm, not happy about that; I am angry and outraged. He deserves our scorn and our condemnation. But we cannot impeach him because of our anger. That would turn our constitutional democracy into a parliamentary system. I am sure my colleagues do not want to subvert the constitution in that way. What we must determine is this: does his conduct constitute a ``high crime'' or a ``misdemeanor''? There is a reasonable doubt about that, and reasonable people can differ on the answer. Because ours is a legislative, not judicial, judgment, exercised as part of our legislative function, we must also determine if impeachment is in the best interests of the country. Historians note that those who are in the middle of history often do not realize it. Today, we are not talking about polls--or even elections--or even the sexual misconduct of our President. After all, this will be only the third time in history we consider impeachment of a sitting President. But that's what this debate is really about. I am shocked at how many people, including some in this Chamber, take this serious matter so lightly, even gleefully. We are witnessing a stampede to judgment. And like many stampedes, when the trail-dust settles we may leave chaos and ruin. This is a time for statesmanship. Each of us must independently assess the best direction for the House and for the country. That is why we should vote for a thoughtful process that will establish whether evidence exists to even open an inquiry before we begin a wide-ranging witch hunt with heavy heart and a keen recognition of history, and with reluctant support for this forum. The American people, the world community, and future historians will judge us as we judge the President. I this House, at this moment, we must rise above passion and partisanship. We must be wise and equal to the public trust. I ask my colleagues for a full debate on the resolution to open impeachment proceedings. We need more than one hour for discussion. Because of the gravity of this vote, we owe it to the American people to have a fully informed, careful, responsible discussion. I also ask for our best judgment. I believe that the process that allows us to have more prudent decision-making is the Democratic alternative. Before we can move forward in recommending articles of impeachment, the Judiciary Committee should determine the standards for defining impeachable offenses. That would be extremely helpful and fair in our evaluation of this issue. With this information, we would be in a better position to discuss impeachment. And I ask for a narrow scope. Impeachment hearings should examine specific, clearly stated, concrete charges. We need to give the Special Prosecutor's report complete consideration, especially after spending $40 million to gather this information. I was not elected to Congress to waste the taxpayers' time and money in political chicanery. I was not elected to engage in a witch-hunt. The discussion must be on-point, specific to the matter-at-hand, relevant, and substantive. This is the time for prudent judgment, for far-sighted decision- making, for fairness, and for justice. We cannot let our unharnessed passions nor our political greed sway us from acting in the country's best interests. We stand at a singular moment in history. Our actions will forever change the culture and political environment of our country. If we do not act with complete fairness, impartiality, and good judgment, we will certainly be harshly judged by our constituents, by the world community, and by history for our impatient folly. I ask my colleagues to demand a fair, just, and realistic process by which we examine these serious, dangerous, and historic charges against the President.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this poorly conceived, hastily prepared antienvironmental legislation. This legislation, as has been noted, has attracted the opposition of the administration, the environmental groups, and even such newspapers as the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Even though I know the gentleman from Utah will be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute, it still falls far short. This legislation does not set sound environmental policies. It sets them on the track in the wrong direction at a time when Americans see the environment as a top priority. This legislation turns a blind eye to the demand of our constituents. For example, in Colorado, a recent statewide poll indicates that an overwhelming number of Coloradans, almost 70 percent across the State, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, support wilderness designation for over a million acres currently being managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This astounding level of support is throughout the State, across party lines. But, instead, what this Congress intends to do, instead of listening to voters like that, is to pass a bill that contains provisions such as taxpayers paying for increased clear-cutting and livestock grazing in national forests. It takes wilderness study area in the San Rafael Swell in Utah and terminates it for 125,000 acres. It creates a new provision for the National Park Service which prohibits the Service from removing inappropriate commercial buildings to protect park values, and on and on. Are these rollback of environmental protections the legacy we want to leave for future generations? I do not. As somebody who represents a State that is well known for its natural beauty, I will do everything I can to make sure we defeat ill-conceived legislation of this nature.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, it was 1998. But, frankly, as far as I am concerned today, it might as well be 1918 when Margaret Sanger went to prison for smuggling diaphragms to women. This is a very sad day for American women. A proposal to provide birth control, birth control, not abortion, a proposal which passed both the House and Senate has now fallen to the demands of the Christian Coalition and the radical right. Denying access to contraception for Federal employees is just a small step in the systemic efforts by the radical right to eradicate, not just a woman's right to abortion, but a woman's right to birth control, to reproductive health. First, it is denying insurance coverage for contraception, then it is outlawing FDA approval of contraception, then criminalizing grandparents for taking teens across State lines for abortion. On and on and on are attempts to both reverse Roe versus Wade and then remove a woman's right to reproductive choice. I think that we need to tell the tens of thousands of Federal employees in this country and their families that this Congress will stop playing God and do what the American people have elected us to do. We have no business in America's bedrooms. We cannot force natural family planning, the method by which my parents had 5 children in 6\1/ 2\ years. We have got to have sensible birth control which will reduce abortion in this country and will give American women a choice over when they have planned pregnancies. I urge this body to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, put this important language for our employees and all Federal employees back in the bill. At that point, it is an excellent bill, and we should all support it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and my friend from Maryland, Connie Morella, for moving this important legislation to the floor. I am pleased that we are considering this so quickly after it was struck down by a point of order in the House version of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. H.R. 4280 is a simple piece of legislation that would permit the Office of Personnel Management to redraw its regulations so that all federal agencies can use existing funds to subsidize child care costs for federal employees. It's a shining example of the old saying, ``a little goes a long way.'' Lower-income employees all around the country will be able to obtain the necessary assistance to seek out and pay for local child care programs. H.R. 4280 does not legislate new federal child care programs or require additional appropriations. At a time when child care costs often exceed $10,000 per child per year, and at a time when employers are fast becoming aware that good child care means higher productivity on the job, this bill is good government. In my district, The Denver Federal Center is situated comfortably at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, about one-half hour away from downtown Denver, Colorado. Roughly 5,500 federal employees are employed at this facility, many of whom are raising small children. This bill would make a simple but profound change in the lives of these individuals--it would make quality child care for their children more affordable. Today we should recognize the importance of quality child care to the positive development of our children and we should take this opportunity to make a straight-forward, administrative change to government practice. It's a small, but important change.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, after close review of this legislation, I have decided to oppose the ``Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act'' otherwise known as fast track trading authority. This proposal includes environmental, labor, and food safety standards as merely negotiating objectives, without any accompanying legislation or side agreements that directly address these issues. My greatest concern is that the health and safety of American families will be jeopardized in future trade accords if these issues are not made a much higher priority. I believe that free trade is good for our economy. There are, however, certain precautions that need to be taken to ensure that free trade agreements do not undermine other principles that our country holds dear, such as a clean environment. One of the potential problems with trade agreements is that they create pressure on neighboring governments to relax environmental regulations in an effort to lure manufacturers across borders, thereby allowing these companies to profit by polluting and abusing natural resources. Congress must also make sure that there are sufficient labor protections when we make our trade agreements so that we can protect against multinational corporations moving production to other countries with lower labor costs. Lastly, we need to make sure that our trade agreements do not compromise our food safety standards. This is a real threat, particularly to our children who are often more severely affected by contaminated food than adults. I am a proponent of free trade; I am as even stronger proponent of fair trade. Our priority should be to forge a sound trade policy that helps, not hurts, the working people of this country. While we address our concerns, we can still achieve strong free trade accords. The Executive branch has negotiated hundreds of agreements without the benefit of fast track, and will continue to do so if fast track authority is not renewed. In my view, the administration's latest set of initiatives to protect labor and environmental issues in trade agreements are insufficient. If these issues are truly a priority, I believe the administration would have worked more aggressively to include them earlier on, instead of presenting a few feeble objectives in the eleventh hour of this debate. The new initiatives to make World Trade Organization activities, such as the settlement of international trade disputes, more open to the public, and to issue reports on worker conditions in other countries might prove valuable but they certainly do not offer enforceable protections. We must insist on negotiating authority that ensures trade pacts contain enforceable food safety, environmental, and labor provisions. What we need is a concrete strategy to improve workers' rights and protect the environment in developing countries, while at the same time negotiating effective trade agreements. I do not believe that this version of fast track meets these vital goals.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4382, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act. I want to take a moment to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment for their steadfast commitment to reauthorizing and improving this act in such an expeditious and thoughtful manner. I am particularly grateful to the subcommittee chairman the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for hearing a request from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and me in July to ensure that the MQSA included the provision we cared so much about on direct patient notification. Mr. Speaker, few public health initiatives that we have undertaken in this Congress are as vital to American women as the MQSA. Before this test, there were no Federal standards for labs, technicians, physicians and quality controls. Women were subject to inconsistent and nonuniform regulations, depending on what State they lived in. Women were literally putting their health and their lives at risk when they obtained mammograms from unregulated or poorly regulated facilities. Reauthorizing and strengthening the MQSA has added importance in 1998. Breast cancer today remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women. Mr. Speaker, 44,000 women died from breast cancer in 1997, and 180,000 new cases of the disease were reported. In this decade alone, 1.8 million women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 500,000 of them will die from it. Congress must continue to help American women attack this devastating disease in its early stages. We know that surviving breast cancer and avoiding mastectomy depends on early discovery of the disease. But of course, mammography as a tool is only as good as the equipment used to detect the cancer. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we improve our ability to detect breast cancer by improving the safety, accuracy and overall quality of mammography services. Strict and frequent certification of mammography facilities is essential to this program's success. I believe that the demonstration project in the bill which examines the feasibility of inspecting high- performing mammography facilities on a less than annual basis is thoughtfully designed and sufficiently limited to protect the best interests of patients. Nevertheless, I want to urge my colleagues to be cautious about expanding this demonstration project until we have more information. MQSA itself has only been fully operational for 3 years, and we want to make sure whatever changes we make still protect the lives and health of women. As I said earlier, I am very pleased that the chairman and ranking member worked cooperatively to include a provision on direct patient notification. I personally have met too many women who have had mammograms and never received the results. Whether it be physician failure, whether it be clinic failure, they never got a copy of the results. Unfortunately and too often, tragically, women who do not hear anything assume no news is good news. We are making an extremely valuable and potentially life-threatening improvement to MQSA today by including written notification to patients. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Committee on Commerce's hard work on this bill and its commitment to reach a consensus on this vital piece of legislation. I believe while relatively simple, this bill is one of our most important achievements of this Congress, and it will save millions of lives and the health of millions of women.

Mr. DeGETTE

Mr. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Colorado on its recent accolade in U.S. News & World Report. National Jewish was ranked the number one respiratory hospital in America in a guide published by U.S. News in July, 1998. National Jewish is truly deserving of this honor, and I believe this hospital's dedication to respiratory illness merits the recognition of the U.S. Congress. National Jewish has built a rock solid reputation in patient care since its inception as the Frances Jacobs Hospital in 1899. At that early time in Denver's history, National Jewish engaged itself thoroughly in battling tuberculosis through emotional, rehabilitative, occupational and recreational care. In fact, my family settled in Denver in the 1930s to pursue asthma treatments at National Jewish for my Great Grandmother, Esther Rosen. Since that time, the hospital and research center has diversified its range of health care services to include the study and treatment of respiratory, allergic and infectious diseases, psychological care, and education courses. Despite this notable expansion, which now demands the work of 105 physicians and scientists, National Jewish has clearly maintained a commitment to the best possible patient care. This most recent ranking in U.S. News distinguishes National Jewish from a field of 6,400 candidates, all of them esteemed institutions. Simply stated, National Jewish is the best respiratory hospital in America. Also published in U.S. News was a far more telling ranking--a reputational score tabulated by a random survey of 150 board-certified specialists. Once again, National Jewish clearly distinguished itself from all candidates, receiving an impressive score of 58.1 percent. Of all the facilities which treat respiratory illnesses, doctors all around the country consistently recognized the excellent reputation of National Jewish as the best. Currently, National Jewish operates a prestigious fellowship program in pulmonary, immunology and allergy training which has trained 500 fellows in 47 states and 17 countries. Its positive influence on the treatment of respiratory illnesses is not only international, but also unprecedented.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Dr. Paul M. Martin, the Senior Pastor of the Macedonia Baptist Church of Denver, Colorado. Dr. Martin recently celebrated his 8th Anniversary at Macedonia, and in celebration of his tenure, a street in the City and County of Denver was renamed for a week in his honor. I want to add my voice to all those in his congregation and throughout the city who are taking this opportunity to honor Dr. Martin and praise him for his leadership. Dr. Martin came to Denver from the South Central Community of Los Angeles where he grew up. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees with honors at several California schools, and holds a Masters of Divinity Degree, and the Doctors of Philosophy Degree. Dr. Martin was appointed by Federico Pena, former Mayor of Denver, to serve on ``Stapleton Tomorrow'' where he has served continuously as the Co-Chairperson of the Citizens Advisory Committee and a member of the Board of Directors of the Stapleton Development Corporation. Additionally, he serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver and is Chairman of the Department of the Ministry for the American Baptist Churches of the Rocky Mountain Region. He is also a life member of the NAACP and his fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi. Dr. Martin is known for his concern about maintaining the ethics and integrity of the Christian Ministry and the traditions of the African- American religious experience. He is a highly respected citizen and I am honored to be able to pay homage to him in recognition of his service and contribution to Macedonia Baptist Church, to honor his dedication and fellowship to people of Denver.