Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to rise today in opposition to the Hefley amendment. At a time when more HMO patients are denied the care they deserve and three thousand more children become addicted to tobacco products every day, I am outraged that this Congress wastes another day of its limited schedule on punitive and hate-based legislation that encourages discrimination against other Americans. I resent the recent escalation of anti-gay rhetoric we are hearing out of Washington. That to be gay or to support gay-rights is somehow an anti-Christian value is absurd. One's religious beliefs should be based on our peaceful co-existence with, and mutual respect for, our fellow human beings. I am proud to call myself a Christian and I am proud to stand up against this discrimination. Mr. Chairman, allow me to remind my fellow Members about a little recent Colorado history. In 1992 the State of Colorado passed Amendment 2 which would have eradicated basic protections for gays. If passed into law, it would have had the same effect as my fellow colleague from Colorado's amendment today. When Amendment 2 passed we became known as the Hate State, a moniker that still sticks today even though the Supreme Court overturned this law declaring it unconstitutional. My esteemed colleagues, do not let us become the Hate Congress! I urge a vote against this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is very straightforward. What it simply 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 coverage of abortion services, women in prison have no money, nor do they have access to outside financial help, nor do they have income which will allow them to obtain these services for themselves. Inmates in Federal prisons are completely dependent upon the Bureau of Prisons for all of their needs, including food, shelter, clothing and every single aspect of their medical care. These women are not able to work at remunerative jobs that would allow them to pay for their medical services, including abortion services, which I will point out to the House are still legal in this country. 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 in this country ranges from $200 to $400. Abortions after the 13th week in this country cost $400 to $700, and abortions after the 16th week, which none of us really favor at all, go up $100 more per week, ending at about $1200 to $1500 in the 24th week. Even if a woman in Federal prison earned the maximum wage on the general pay scale and worked 40 hours per week, she would never have the money to pay for an abortion in the first trimester. After that, the cost of an abortion rises so dramatically that even if the female inmate saves her entire salary, she would never ever be able to afford a legal 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 to a safe and legal abortion. Let me remind my colleagues again, for the last 25 years in this country, women in this country have had the right legally and constitutionally to abortion. With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend on for health services, women prisoners are, in effect, coerced into pregnancy by this bill. Let me talk just for a minute about the kinds of women who are entering prison today in this country. Most women entering prison are victims of physical and sexual abuse, some incest victims which would not be excluded by this bill, two-thirds of them are incarcerated for drug offenses, and many of them are HIV infected or have full-blown AIDS. Does Congress think that it is in this country's best interests to force these women against their will to carry these pregnancies to term? And what happens to the children of the women who are bearing these unwanted children in prison? These children are taken from their mothers at birth to an uncertain future. I do not see any provision in this bill that provides for quick adoption of these children or other means by which they can have a fulfilled life that would not follow in the tracks of their incarcerated parents. This bill, make no mistake about it, is about forcing women against their will to have a child. It is downright foolish and cruel to force women in Federal prisons to bear children in prison when that child will be taken from them at birth to an uncertain future. In 1993, Congress did the right thing when it overturned this barbaric policy. I urge my colleagues to do the same today and to support the DeGette amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DeGETTE. Distinguished Chairman, I would just ask a question. How does the gentleman from Illinois feel about that little baby which would be born against its mother's will, probably HIV positive, and ripped from the arms of its mother at birth only to be taken away to one of those agencies he points to?

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey talks about the terrible abortion procedures, and the truth is my colleague would ban all abortions, and I understand that. But that is not the law of this country. The law of this country is that women have a right to abortion. But the way this bill is written, women in prison, because of the low amount they would make, would only be able to afford an abortion if they waited until the third trimester, which is a result no one in this room would like to have. It is much more compassionate for the prisoners, it is much better for everybody if it is done in the first trimester when it is safe and it protects the mother's health. It is the right thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do, and it is the legal thing to do. I urge support of the DeGette amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse). (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment to increase funding for the National Women's Business Council. Last year, the National Women's Business Council was unanimously passed by the Small Business Committee and went on to pass the House by an overwhelming vote of 397 to 17. The Senate has already provided full funding for the Council in their CJS Appropriations bill. I urge the House to vote for this amendment and continue to support National Women's Business Council. The National Women's Business Council is a bi-partisan Federal government advisory panel created to serve as an independent source of advice and council to the President and Congress. The Council consists of 15 prominent women business owners and leaders of Women's business organizations. It is essentially the voice of approximately 8 million women-owned businesses in the country. The Council was recently instructed by Congress to complete a study on women's business participation in the federal government. The main goals are to find out why women-owned businesses continue to receive so few federal contracts, and do a study on women's access to capital. Women-owned businesses play an increasingly more important role in our economy. Between 1987 and 1996 the number of firms owned by women grew by 78%, and the number of minority women-owned firms grew 206%. Current estimates are that the nearly eight million women-owned businesses in this country account for nearly $1.4 trillion in sales. And yet, women-owned businesses continue to receive just 2% of federal contracts, and just 2% of all venture capital. In 1996, women-owned firms accounted for 40% of all businesses in Colorado, provided employment for 33% of Colorado's workers, and generated 19% of the state's business sales. During the entire 1987- 1996 period, the National Foundation for Women Business owners estimates that the number of women-owned firms in Colorado has increased by 65%, that employment has grown by 235% and sales have risen 276%. These astounding statistics underscore the importance of the studies conducted by the National Women's Business Council. The Council needs its full appropriation to be able to carry out these studies which are clearly of great importance to small businesswomen in my state and throughout this country. I ask my colleagues to vote for small business in this country and pass this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the Denver International Airport has now been constructed for about 3 years, but it is like building an airport with one hand tied behind your back because we do not have a runway that can adequately handle international traffic and the international business development in Denver and the Front Range. My esteemed senior colleague to the south says that there are problems with noise at the airport, and that is true. There are always noise issues around every airport, and Denver has done everything in their power to reduce the noise as much as possible. I will point out to my colleague that the residents, many of whom live in the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer), none that I know of who live in my colleague to the south's district, voted to approve the airport in the beginning. This was not an airport that was thrust upon them. Under the Colorado constitution, they had to vote to approve it. Denver has worked assiduously and intends to continue to work assiduously to make sure that all noise problems associated with DIA are reduced to the greatest extent possible, if not eliminated. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their support in recognizing this and recognizing the fact that putting a ban on a sixth runway does not solve these noise issues but merely stunts the economic growth in the Front Range of Colorado. I look forward to working with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and with this committee in the future to make sure that the sixth runway is constructed, that it is adequately funded, and I also look forward to working with my colleagues from the rest of the Colorado delegation to make sure that we eliminate as much as possible any noise. I will say that Denver and my office remain committed to making sure that the noise problems are eliminated as much as possible, and I look forward to getting on with the construction of this sixth runway.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Mollohan's amendment to increase funding for federal legal services. The Legal Services Corporation is a successful public-private partnership that enables the poor and indigent to gain access to the civil court system. Today, some of my colleagues are proposing to fund this cooperative effort at only $141 million dollars, 43% less than last year and less than half the level that it was funded at 18 years ago. Let me be clear on this point. If we do not vote for the Mollohan amendment--which restores the funding of the Legal Service Corporation to its present level--we will deal a viscious blow to equal justice. The truth is that Americans have long recognized the importance of fighting for the rights of people who cannot fight for themselves. Open and equal access to the courts is as old as the Republic itself. In criminal cases, defendants have been guaranteed the right to a court- appointed attorney since ratification of the Sixth Amendment in 1791. And in civil cases, organized civil legal assistance began as early as 1876, when the Legal Aid Society of New York first set up shop to protect the rights of New Yorkers. Opponents of increased funding for legal services say that legal aid groups work against the will of the people by using taxpayer dollars to wage the frivolous legal battles of drug dealers and the like. Not only are these claims greatly exaggerated, but I would add that Congress has a duty to legislate and appropriate, not play judge and jury. Citizens of this country have a constitutional right to access the courts and to have their claims decided on their merits. The Constitution grants equal protection under the law to all people, providing no exceptions for those who are unpopular. By defunding legal services, we are saying that our justice is only available to those who can afford it. In my district, the Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver recently closed the case of a 74 year old nursing home resident who has suffered from heart failure, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, coronary artery disease and chronic mood disorder. Needless to say, this gentleman requires special care 24 hours a day. He has a spouse, but she is herself a survivor of two cancer-related surgeries and has recently been instructed by a doctor not to let stress exacerbate her condition. My constituent, the nursing home resident, was recently deemed ineligible for nursing home care by the state agency responsible for administering Medicaid. After a doctor advised the state agency that moving my constituent from a nursing home would be ``medically irresponsible,'' the state agency still did not change its decision. At this point, my constituent went to Legal Aid of Denver which represented him in an administrative law judge hearing. The state agency finally reversed its ruling and today my constituent is receiving the care that he needs and deserves. Mr. Chairman, this is one small case. I assure you that there are many more cases like this one pending around the country. And one year from now, as millions of people leave the welfare rolls because of newly imposed time-limits, we absolutely must have a legal system in place for the poor, for the homeless, and for those children and families who have nowhere else to turn. Take the Legal Services Corporation off the chopping block by voting yea on the Mollohan amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Ganske-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights, and in equally strong opposition to the Hastert bill. Nothing in the Republican bill would have protected the rights of young Brice Randa from Colorado. Here is a picture of the Randa family, Allen and Jodi with their children Taylor on the left and Brice on the right. Brice died just two months after this picture was taken. Brice was diagnosed with Lissencephaly, a terrible disease that made Brice's short life limited to breathing tubes, stomach wraps and motor seizures, a disease which eventually killed him. Although it was inevitable, Brice's death is heartbreaking for more than one reason. The tragedy lies in the fact that this family spent the few precious months they had with their son negotiating with the HMOs instead of taking care of their precious little boy. The 16 months the Randas had with Brice were consumed with lawyers filing paperwork and appealing decisions made by their HMO. The Randas' doctor wrote the HMO begging, ``The family is overwhelmed. We petition for 4 hours per day extra assistance,'' and the HMO denied this. Under the Republican bill, a health plan can define medical necessity any way it wants, giving families like the Randas no protection from insurance company bureaucrats deciding what medical care is appropriate. Moreover, under the GOP's rules, if the Randas did want an external review of the decision denying the 4 hours a day of care for Brice, they would have to pony up $100 from their pocket just to have the case heard by somebody who would have to follow guidelines set by the very HMO that denied the care in the first place. And if Brice had needed emergency care, the HMO would have had 72 hours to consider an appeal of an emergency care decision. Frankly, this GOP scheme is worse than the status quo. It stabs at the heart of what the debate over HMO reform is really about. On the other hand, the Ganske-Dingell bill ensures that the medical profession will define medically necessary care. Vote for our alternative. Vote ``no'' on the Hastert bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 1122. Let us consider what we have learned since the House last considered this so-called partial-birth abortion ban. Six of the nine States that have passed these laws using language from the Federal bill have had their laws enjoined by the courts. Moreover, 18 respected judges from a range of ideological viewpoints across the country have found that H.R. 1122 is so vague and overreaching that it could prevent legal abortions throughout pregnancy. Make no mistake about it, preventing legal abortions is exactly what the proponents of this bill intended. Their goal is not ultimately to ban a specific medical procedure, but it is ultimately to outlaw abortion altogether. Members should not just take my word for it, but should listen to the words of the Federal judges from across the political spectrum and across the country. Iowa District Judge Robert W. Pratt held that the partial-birth abortion law is, ``unconstitutionally vague and unduly burdensome on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.'' Illinois Judge Charles P. Kocoras held that, ``The statute, as written, has the potential effect of banning the most common and safest abortion procedures.'' U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska said, ``A criminal law, especially one banning protected constitutional freedoms like abortion, that fails to give wordings or that allows arbitrary prosecution is `void for vagueness.' Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban is the epitome of such a law.'' Now, the esteemed gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said that he was glad, and I am glad too, that last week he voted to allow the free use of contraception. No one likes abortion. I abhor abortion. But abortion is what we need from time to time when pregnancies go tragically awry. In the meantime, we need contraception. Regrettably, almost 200 of our colleagues did not agree with the gentleman from Indiana, and they in fact would ban four of the five approved forms of contraception in this country. That is what this agenda item is about. This agenda item is not about saving healthy babies. This agenda item is about ultimately banning not only abortion, but a woman's right to birth control so that she can choose the direction of her own body. Madam Speaker, if this was such a critical problem in this country right now, why did we wait since October 1997 to override the President's veto? We could have saved, according to my colleagues on that side of the aisle, hundreds of healthy babies. No, this is not a critical health problem in this country. This is a political issue for the 1998 elections.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, why would we target a program like the NEA when it costs so little for our country but provides such a great benefit across this wide country? We engage in a continual debate about cutting funding to this agency that increases citizens' access to the arts, helps us preserve our diverse cultural heritage, and stimulates private and local funding for the arts. In many States, like Colorado, NEA funding provides the necessary funds for small museums in tiny towns, for school programs, for children who would never have any arts education, and for a variety of arts programs across the country. This is an incredibly beneficial program. We should not be talking about cutting it. We should be talking about finding increased funding to provide this necessary public benefit across the country.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1689, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. I too believe that strike suits can be a problem, but I believe more importantly that defrauded investors who cannot recover their losses is a greater problem, and furthermore the way we are superseding long established State laws is a problem as well. I am concerned like everyone 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 a company millions. The issue needs to be addressed. But frankly the issue to this date has been quite limited. Both proponents and opponents of the bill agree that the number of suits have actually declined in the last year. I believe we would be setting a dangerous precedent by going in and blatantly preempting State securities laws, many of which were passed before the Federal Securities Act of 1933, and many of these States which have long established bodies of blue sky laws and securities cases in their own States. I have significant federalism concerns about this bill. I think anybody on either side of the aisle who cares about States rights ought to have significant federalism concerns. This is an issue which is important but it is also an issue that is limited in its impact to date and it is an issue where if we pass legislation today, we will severely restrict State laws that protect investors and protect small investors most importantly. For that reason, I urge rejection of this bill. It is premature, and we need to find out a way that States can pass appropriate laws without having them be preempted by Federal law.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time again, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for working with us on these issues.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, before I make the rest of my statement, I would like to thank our distinguished ranking member for working so closely with me and my office on this brownfields amendment. I would also like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for assisting in this matter. As written, the bill prohibits the EPA from giving much-needed, much- sought-after assistance to localities and jeopardizing the cleanup of sites. Our amendment gives local communities the tools they need to clean up decaying and sterile brownfield sites, creating jobs and revitalizing our neighborhoods. Brownfields are abandoned and often contaminated properties that can be found in urban, suburban and rural areas across the United States. We all have brownfields in our communities; the abandoned gas station on the corner, the dormant steel plant in the valley, the old mill by the river. The GAO has estimated there are approximately 450,000 brownfields sites around the country. Cleaning up these sites and returning them to productive use will not only benefit the public health and the environment, but it will create jobs and economic opportunities. In urban areas like Denver, redevelopment of brownfields can also prevent urban sprawl and development of pristine areas called greenfields. The EPA's brownfields initiative has been tremendously successful. It has awarded 2-year brownfields pilots intended to bring together public and private efforts at all levels of government. In fact, the EPA has awarded more than 228 project grants, including 71 new pilots that the Vice President just announced this week. However, this bill has three problems. First of all, it prevents any of these funds from being used by localities to set up revolving loan programs. Secondly, it provides only $75 million in funding, $16.3 million below the administration's request, and, frankly, well below the real needs in this country for brownfields redevelopment. Thirdly, the legislation prohibits the funds from being used for research and community outreach, a vital component of the program which furthers understanding of brownfields and gives community tools to redevelopment. Many communities in the country have benefitted from brownfields redevelopment, and we need to make sure that we do not limit them by the language in this legislation. I have received numerous letters from mayors across the country, including Denver, Commerce City, Colorado, and Salt Lake City, expressing the need for full funding for the studies and for the money to be used for redevelopment. This is a widely supported bill by communities across the country. I urge adoption of our amendment so that it can be used to its fullest potential.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to be clear that the use of the EPA funding that is contemplated in the brownfields program, we have no objection to it being used for the purposes which the statute was intended, but I think it is a little inaccurate to say that there has been legal authority saying that it is not intended to be used for revolving funds and other purposes. First of all, the Inspector General audited pilot programs issued by the EPA and in March 1998 issued a report that said there was not any misuse of funds. In fact, the Inspector General's report concluded that the activities reviewed were authorized under CERCLA. The Inspector General's only recommendations were administrative in nature, such as the recommendation to revise the EPA's ranking criteria. None of the recommendations implied, as I understand it, that the grant should be terminated, or that the grant program itself was at all questionable. In fact, the Inspector General praised the program. The EPA has agreed, I would like to stress, to all of the Inspector General's recommendations and states, ``We believe the corrective actions underway and planned by the agency address the report's recommendations. Therefore, we are closing this report upon recommendation.'' The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), our Chairman, asked the GAO to review grants and agreements awarded by the EPA since 1993, the first year the Agency began the brownfields efforts. The GAO found during its 1998 on-site audit of financial records that overall, the recipients were spending the funds in accordance with guidance of OMB. So I guess I would just like to state for the record that I agree that EPA should not be able to use these funds for any illegal purpose beyond its legal authority, but I think that to state that they have been using them for illegal purposes goes beyond what the Inspector General and GAO have, in fact, said.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and myself to strike the anti-Brownfields environmental rider to this bill. This bill jeopardizes the EPA's brownfields program which we heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) so eloquently refer to in three ways: First of all, it prohibits any of these funds from being used by localities to set up revolving loan programs. Secondly, this bill provides only $75 million in funding, which is 17.4 percent below the President's budget request. Finally, this bill prohibits the funds from being used for research and community outreach, a vital component of the program, which furthers understanding of brownfields and gives communities the tools to further redevelopment. Our amendment remediates these three problems with the bill. It restores the important brownfields component of the legislation, which is so critical towards cleaning up environmental contamination in our inner-cities throughout this country and revitalizing these areas so that they can be economically beneficial to the entire community. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for working with me on this amendment.