Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in 1997, EPA issued 24 grants to States and local governments to establish revolving loan funds, and on October 2, 1997, the general counsel issued a legal memorandum identifying the EPA's legal authority to set up the brownfields cleanup revolving loan request programs. The EPA legal authority for these revolving loan funds has never been independently evaluated or challenged by the GAO or the Inspector General.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, 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. The Morella amendment would make a simple but profound change in the lives of these individuals--it would make quality child care for their children more affordable. The amendment before us today would permit the Office of Personnel Management to redraw its regulations so that all federal agencies could use existing funds to subsidize child care costs for federal employees. In the case of this amendment, a little would truly go a long way. Lower-income employees all around the country could get the necessary assistance to seek out and pay for local area child care programs. 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 amendment is good government. By passing this measure, we not only recognize the importance of quality child care to the positive development of our children, but we also encourage productive, family-friendly government. This amendment does not legislate new child care programs or require new appropriations. It is simply an opportunity for Congress to make a straight-forward, administrative change to government practice. It's a small, but important change. point of order

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the deceptively titled Child Custody Protection Act. I am a mother, too. I have two young daughters. And I would hope and pray that my two young daughters would come to me if they got into the tragic situation of an inadvertent pregnancy. But if they could not come to me, I certainly do not want them in a back alley having an unsafe abortion. Do we want to create a society where young women who face an unintended pregnancy cannot turn to a relative or a close friend for help? Do we want to increase the number of illegal and often lethal back-alley abortions? Do we want to criminalize grandparents for taking their grandchildren to another State for an abortion? Do we want to criminalize a bus driver who transports a minor across State lines for an abortion? Do we want to force the few young women who cannot involve their parents in these decisions into potentially violent and abusive situations by forcing them to get the consent of their dysfunctional parents? I think not. And I think we should vote against the bill for this reason. Columnist Ellen Goodman said last week, ``You can't write a law forcing parent-child communication.'' But if we try, we are going to see tragedies across this country. If my colleagues do not like the Becky Bell example, let us talk about Spring Adams, a 13-year-old girl from Idaho who was shot to death by her parent after he learned she intended to have an abortion for a pregnancy that he himself caused. The proponents of this bill claim it to be constitutional. But it would be the first Federal legislation which would restrict the rights of the adults, of the adults, to cross State lines legally. That is why this bill is unconstitutional. It is wrong. It will not solve the problem and we need to reject it.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in opposition to this bill, reluctantly, because I believe that there is a great need in the Salton Sea if we can begin to remediate all of the problems that it has. However, the legislation, as drafted, contains a number of anti-environmental provisions which could jeopardize the Sea's revitalization. This bill provides unneeded exemptions from the Clean Water Act, it places time limits to judicial review associated with the project, and it improperly uses the Land and Water Conservation Fund to fund its cleanup. The LWCF provides funding for acquisition of high priority lands, and by diverting up to $350 million from the LWCF to the Salton Sea project, it jeopardizes the acquisition and protection of other high priority lands across the country. In fact, this funding exceeds the total of $270 million that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1998 for LWCF acquisitions. Consequently, I am supporting the Miller-Brown amendment, which authorizes an exhaustive 18-month study of the problems of the Salton Sea, combining both science and engineering considerations, to determine the best solution. It is true we have ignored this important environmental problem for several decades, but that is even more reason why we should not rush in to a remediation without completing the necessary studies that we need to conduct. Therefore, I urge support of the Miller-Brown amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation if that amendment does not pass.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on roll call 261. It was my intention to vote ``yes''.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, this past Saturday marked the 1-year anniversary of the State attorneys general's proposed tobacco settlement. Ironically, this anniversary was also marked by the death of tobacco legislation in this Congress. Since June 1997, Congress has done nothing to stem the willful and destructive forces of the tobacco industry. Today, more than a year later, all we see is a list of principles from the majority party that protects Big Tobacco and still punishes teens. By selling out to Big Tobacco, the 105th Congress has failed to act while an astounding 1,095,000 more kids became addicted to this lethal product. During this 1-minute speech, two more children will become addicted to tobacco. This tombstone symbolizes the 1,095,000 children addicted to tobacco just in the last year. Madam Speaker, if we are serious about reducing teen smoking, we need to pass important and comprehensive legislation and we need to raise the legal purchase price from 18 to 21 years old. Let us not make this paper tombstone turn to stone.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last night Big Tobacco did what it does best again when it spent $40 million to kill the comprehensive tobacco legislation. Is that what America's children are worth? This Saturday, it will be exactly 1 year since the State attorneys general proposed their settlement agreement. Since last June, Congress has done nothing to stem the willful and destructive forces of the tobacco industry. By selling out to Big Tobacco, the 105th Congress has sat idly by while an astounding 1,095,000 more kids have become addicted to tobacco. One-third of those children, over 300,000, will die from tobacco. These kids are not faceless figures, they are our children. Mr. Speaker, we cannot be fooled into believing this problem is too complex for the House to address. We can address it. We must address it this year. One simple solution is to raise the legal purchase age for smoking from 18 to 21. Raising the legal age will squash big tobacco's ransom demands by paving the way for new restrictions on tobacco solicitations on college campuses. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to consider meaningful tobacco legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3097, the ``Tax Code Termination Act.'' This ill-conceived legislation would terminate the entire federal tax code, except for those provisions that fund Social Security and Medicare, on December 31, 2002. It also requires Congress to enact a new tax code by July 4, 2002, six months before the current tax code would end. It is undeniable that our federal tax code is complex. Yet, throwing out the entire system will not simplify matters. Eliminating the current tax system with no viable alternative in place will only send this country's economy into utter chaos. If this bill is enacted into law, all financial activity in this country could very well stop because no one would know the tax status of their investments, purchases, mortgages or savings accounts until July 4, 2002. I would welcome a serious debate on real comprehensive tax reform, but what is before us today is simply a political gimmick and certainly not real reform. This bill raises a multitude of questions but provides no answers.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. I believe H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act, is a good bill and will dramatically improve our ability to protect children from sexual predators who use the Internet and other forms of communication to target children. I am concerned, however, by the inclusion of Representative Sherman's amendment to this important bill. While I believe the intention of the amendment is laudable. I believe it could have negative implications. First, I am concerned that the amendment would undermine the effectiveness of Megan's law. I support Megan's law and in fact, was an original cosponsor of Megan's law in Colorado. States have spent significant time and resources promulgating laws to appropriately notify communities of sexual predators. I am concerned that this amendment would undermine that effort. I am also concerned that this amendment infringes on individual privacy rights. I believe this issue merits further attention by Congress. Yet until we have hearings on this issue and hear more from the Department of Justice, we should not move forward hastily.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3616, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for FY 99, because it contains two egregious provisions which adversely affect women in the military--allowing gender segregated training and housing facilities, and banning access to health care clinics overseas for a full range of health care services. However, I am in support of the bill's authorization of $655 million to aid in the cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear site near Denver. This total represents an additional $40 million to President Clinton's request, and I commend the Committee on National Security for its vision and leadership on this important project. Yet the provisions which attacks on the rights of women in the military are needless poison pills to this very important and necessary authorization bill. Every woman in America has a constitutional right to have an abortion. The anti-choice movement in Congress has been relentless in its effort to overturn this constitutional right. Additionally, segregating women from men will not improve discipline, training, or effectiveness. In times of war, women and men fight together, not separately. In fact, our military opposes this initiative, yet the House of Representatives has approved this unprecedented initiative. Consequently, I oppose this legislation in its current form and I urge my colleagues to think about the message they are sending to all American women when they take away these rights of military women. I hope that the conference report will return to the House without these two meanspirited and harmful provisions.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the career of one of the longest serving National Officers of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO, John Kelly, who has announced his retirement after a most distinguished career representing Union members. John Kelly was a native of the Philadelphia, PA area, but came to the Denver area when he was four years old. He was a graduate of North High School and began his career with the United States Post Office on September 30, 1962, eight years before Congress created the U.S. Postal Service. John's sterling union career began as a steward, later as secretary, and finally, as President of the Denver local. In 1971, five postal unions merged to form the APWU, and John became a full-time union officer. As the National Vice President for APWU, John served on the National Executive Board, the highest governing body of the Union. Today, he is the senior business agent for the APWU, an organization which has grown to include business agents nationwide. During his tenure with APWU, John was well-known not only for his skills at arbitration but for his ability to help the members understand the very technical language of their contract with the Postal Service. His expertise was so thorough that the APWU used his services in national contract negotiations and numerous other special projects that affected the union. He has promoted union advocacy and educated colleagues on how to interpret the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the National Labor Relations Act. For 28 years John has represented the APWU in the Denver Region, which includes the states of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. John was one of the principal architects of the five-state Denver Regional Assembly, an entity that flourishes today. He is so highly respected that no one has run against him in the National Election in more than 20 years. Again, I take this opportunity to thank John Kelly for his years of service to the APWU and want to wish him and his family the best in retirement.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey- Harman-Morella amendment. This amendment is simply about restoring the basic rights that have been denied to women simply because they serve in the military. Every woman in America has a constitutional right to reproductive choice. Yet the anti-choice movement in Congress has been relentless to overturn this constitutional right. Poor women, women who live in the Nation's capital, women in the military are just the first victims of a deliberate attempt to outlaw access to comprehensive reproductive services to all American women. This amendment ensures that women in the military can exercise the same rights that all women of America were guaranteed 25 years ago. The amendment does not require the Department of Defense to pay for abortions. It simply allows military women to seek and pay for a full range of health care services. If that includes electricity, I am sure they can pay for the electricity as well. If this amendment fails, Congress will jeopardize the health of all women who serve in the military overseas. I urge my colleagues to think about the message they are sending and to vote aye on this amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of this legislation because it addresses the critical needs of medical centers throughout the country. In Denver, for example, the need for a new parking structure has increased with the expansion of programs provided by the VA Medical Center, especially outpatient programs and the increasing employment necessitated by the programs. Currently, the lack of available parking impedes access to care. Less than 400 parking spaces are available on the grounds; and many patients, some of whom it is difficult to walk far, have to park up to five blocks away from the medical center. H.R. 3603 addresses this problem. It provides for construction of a multi-level structure to house 700 parking spaces, and it includes a horizontal connection to the existing medical center. Consequently, it will enhance our ability to provide timely, efficient health care to the veterans, the many veterans, in the Denver metropolitan area. I thank the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Arizona Mr. Stump), for their leadership and assistance in providing this important funding.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Competitiveness Act. We have an opportunity today to modernize financial laws that have not changed since the 1930s. This legislation takes some important steps to modernize Depression-era banking laws that no longer reflect the reality of today's marketplace. I know there are fears about the complexity of this legislation. I know that those changes make everybody nervous. But this is a complex issue and it demands a complex solution. The good news is the bill has the potential to foster free-market competition and protect the interests of the public with the consumer protections included in the managers' amendment. Supporters of this bill have heralded how much it will benefit consumers. And it will if we pass the managers' amendment, which includes the very important Bliley-Dingell consumer protection language. There is an additional consumer protection that is included in the underlying bill and deserves recognition. Buried in H.R. 10 is the first-ever Federal protection aimed at preventing property, casualty and life insurers from discriminating against survivors of domestic violence. I first raised this issue last October during the Committee on Commerce consideration of H.R. 10. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were stunned to learn that insurers routinely use domestic violence as an underwriting criterion. Many insurers treat a person's history of abuse as if it were a life-style choice like skydiving or car racing. Domestic violence is indeed dangerous, but it is in no way a life-style choice. During the intense and often acrimonious negotiations over this legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce did not lose sight of the importance of this issue. I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) for their steadfast commitment to including these important protections in the underlying bill. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who are the original sponsors of the legislation upon which the amendment was built and whose leadership has been instrumental in pushing this issue to the forefront of debate. While 23 States have passed this protection, H.R. 10 will help all victims of domestic abuse. It will also help consumers. I urge support of the managers' amendment. I urge support of the legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I am in strong support of the manager's amendment, primarily because of the numerous consumer protection provisions that it contains. I am particularly concerned about preservation of the community services that are intended by the Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act is vitally important to many, many areas in this country. In my district in Denver, for example, the Community Reinvestment Act has been used to revitalize our local urban economy. I was concerned in the underlying bill that because of the structuring, that the Community Reinvestment Act would be undermined. I retain those concerns, but I feel that the 2-year review period contained in the manager's amendment will give us ample time to see the effect of H.R. 10 on the CRA. I hope and I urge that Congress, at the end of this 2-year period, will take a strong look as if the CRA is being preserved and expanded, and take quick legislative action if it is not, so our urban communities, our small women- and minority-owned businesses, can be preserved, while at the same time we have financial expansion and modernization.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues pick up any copy of Rolling Stone or Sports Illustrated, they are certain to see tobacco advertisements dominating the pages. Why? Because these publications are aimed at college-aged kids, and tobacco companies know they must aggressively seduce this age group into smoking if they are to survive as an industry. That is why R.J.R. has invested millions of dollars in its Camel Club Program in cities like Cleveland and in Denver, where college-aged kids hand out free cigarettes and R.J.R. paraphernalia to their peers. Most minors under 21 who pick up smoking as a casual habit will become addicted to cigarettes for a lifetime. In fact, there is a less than 10 percent chance of becoming addicted to cigarettes if a smoker does not first light up before his or her first 21st birthday. The only way to stop the tobacco industry from luring kids under 21 into using this deadly product is to make the sale of tobacco illegal to this age group. By raising the age to 21, we can stop this deadly practice.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding and also for her inspired leadership on this issue. Last night we began debating a higher education bill that will significantly help students who go on to get a postsecondary education. As I stand here today, I think, what good is that bill, what good is this bill if we cannot even give an elementary or a secondary education to a kid? What good is legislation for postsecondary education if we sabotage the public school system in this country and if we undermine the future of millions of kids in this country? And this legislation is just the first step. Public schools in Washington and all over the United States face very real and serious problems. But we do not solve them by funneling money away from them. If we begin instituting voucher systems, we might as well just say, let us walk away from our public schools. And none of us are ready to do that. Let us talk about this lifeboat analogy we heard about. Imagine there is a ship that is about to sink. We know the ship is going down. We have the chance to do something about it. The Republican response is, let us make sure that we have lifeboats for 3 percent of the passengers on the ship. The rest of the passengers, let us hope they can swim. What we need to do to effectively address the problems that our public schools face is to fix our crumbling inner-city schools, reduce our classroom size, train qualified teachers, modernize our classroom, and connect our kids to the Internet. Let us look at competition, but within the public schools.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 102, expressing the sense of the Congress on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important resolution. I look forward to a unanimous vote by the House that will send a strong message of our country's unyielding support to the State of Israel. April 30th will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the State of Israel. Israel's extraordinary history makes this milestone especially significant. Despite incredible challenges and continuous obstacles, Israel has developed into a prosperous democracy, whose citizens continue to enjoy the unlimited freedoms that Israel was created to protect. The State of Israel and the well being of her people is one of the foreign policy issues that people in my district care about the most. There are so many in this country who share a common denominator of heritage, history and identity with the people of Israel. For many Jewish-Americans the fate of Israel is something to which they are inextricably linked. The United States and Israel have a unique relationship due to the fact that Israel is our only democratic ally in that region of the world. There is no better time than right now to reaffirm our commitment to foreign support for Israel. I believe foreign aid to Israel is an important way to support and promote the peace talks. I am concerned that without peace in the Middle East, Israel's second fifty years will be as tumultuous as her first half century. At Israel's 100th anniversary, I hope we can look back on Israel's second fifty years as a period of peace and prosperity where the challenges that face her today have long faded into history.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficiency and Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA). This legislation provides a total of over $218.3 billion over six years for federal highway and transit programs. This funding is much needed and overdue, and will provide Americans with a stronger transportation infrastructure. The effects of BESTEA are clear. It will save lives by improving the safety of our highways, and will improve the environment by emphasizing mass transit, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ), and non-motorized uses such as bike trails. The First Congressional District of Colorado is one of the top ten fastest growing metropolitan area in the country and has witnessed unprecedented demands on its transportation system. The need for wise and creative investment in transportation has never been greater for Denver metropolitan area. This legislation will address these needs, laying a sound foundation for federal-local partnership. However, I believe that the offsets for BESTEA must not come from important domestic programs, such as education, environment or health care. Therefore, I will oppose efforts which seek to sacrifice the progress this country has made to improve the quality of life. Congress needs to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that these offsets are fair and appropriate.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. While I agree that some of our forests are in trouble, I actually think this legislation could increase that trouble. The legislation before us has been presented as a compromise, but this compromise does not in any way address the fundamental flaws that still exist in the bill. The bill sets up a quick and dirty review process in which timber is harvested under the guise of improving forest health. Proponents have trumpeted this legislation as based on science. Yet, no scientific consensus exists for the perceived forest health crisis. In fact, over 100 scientists have signed a letter which directly disputes this assertion. Currently, the Forest Service has the authority to undertake restoration work on particular forests. Yet, this bill would take that ability away, because it uses forest health as an excuse to increase commercial logging by minimizing forest analysis and determining the appropriate value of the land. It sets up a separate account to pay for this forest health program, following $30 million of receipts to the States. The current recipient of these funds, the Forest Service, estimates that a repair backlog of $10 billion exists for maintenance needs. These funds are needed to address legitimate and substantial ecosystem maintenance needs, such as removing old roads that are degrading water quality and degrading our forest. Yet, under this bill, the Forest Service would not have access to these much-needed funds, and the diverted money would allow States to build new roads for the purposes of logging. Finally, this legislation does not forbid the use of money for new temporary roads. So under the guise, again, of forest health, this bill could open up wide tracks of currently unspoiled forests to logging, wreaking havoc on wildlife and decimating forests for decades to come. Mr. Chairman, building these roads will not increase our forest health, it will erode it; and for that reason, I urge a no vote on this legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have noted, there is little to like in this conference report, but the worst of it is the restrictions on international family planning. Let us be clear. We are not talking here about eliminating funding for abortions overseas. We have already done that. What we are talking about is eliminating U.S. funding for international family planning. Well, if my colleagues want to increase abortions and jeopardize the health of millions of women and children around the world, they should vote for this conference report to limit international family planning. If my colleagues promised their constituents they would work to deny women across the globe desperately needed reproductive health services and vital pre- and postnatal care, they should vote for this conference report. If my colleagues want to drive women and families in developing countries further into poverty and despair, then they should vote for this conference report. And if my colleagues want to put a global gag on people around the world talking about these issues, then they should vote for this legislation. But if my colleagues care about saving lives and improving the quality of lives, then they should vote no on this conference committee report. If enacted, this legislation will gut one of the jewels of the U.S. foreign policy. Voluntary family planning services work. They work in this country, they work around the world, and they work to reduce unwanted pregnancies and improve the quality of life for millions of families around the world. I urge a no vote on this conference committee report.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of women's history month to recognize the achievements of business women in my community and across the country. In my State of Colorado, women have had a dramatic impact on the economy. There are over 160,000 women-owned businesses in my State, which account for 40 percent of all firms in Colorado. Women employ over 350,000 people in Colorado and were responsible for generating $39 billion in sales in 1996. While many of the businesses owned by Colorado women are traditional, such as service and retail, the greatest increase in women-owned firms has been in industries like transportation, communications, construction, and mining. Women are making significant contributions to the economy in Colorado and across the country. I am pleased to recognize not only the advancements made by women in business, but also the vital role they play as employers and investors in today's economy. Despite challenges and initial setbacks, women-owned businesses are at the forefront of many new and innovative ideas.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my regret that H.R. 2181, the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act, expands the death penalty in federal law. Members of this Congress have heard definitive testimony from law enforcement officials that witness intimidation and coercion are increasing at a disturbing rate. As the instance of intimidation rises for gang-related and drug crimes, Congress must be responsive. Witnesses need to feel confident that they will be removed and protected from aggressors. Creating a series of new opportunities for courts to impose the death penalty, however, is not the answer.