Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as one of just a handful of mothers in the 105th Congress with young children, I know how difficult it is to find quality, affordable child care. That is why this resolution is particularly important to me. We must be supportive of parents who have the ability to stay home with their children and can afford to forgo a second income. However, the majority of American families with working parents rely on child care to help them care for their children. Quality child care is critical for many families in this country. I am concerned that this resolution (H. Con. Res. 202) misrepresents how many children of preschool age have mothers in the labor force who rely on someone else to help them care for their children. The resolution includes statements which suggests that child care is not an issue for most American families. As families struggle to make ends meet, the reality is more parents are working full time, part time or looking for work than ever before. As a result, 60% of preschool aged children have mothers in the work force. The correct statistics demonstrate that quality, safe and affordable child care is vital for most American families. Even parents who forego an extra income often rely on child care, like parents day out programs, to help them. In 1996, 78% of all four year old were in non-parental care at least some part of the week. Congressional legislation must address the needs of both working and stay at home parents to provide them with quality, safe and affordable child care regardless of their economic situation. A family where both parents work should not have to compromise its children's well-being due to poor child care choices. The ultimate goal of this Congress should be helping families, whatever their situation, provide the best possible care for their children. We need to support ALL parents in their child care choices.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error I was omitted as a cosponsor of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, but wanted the fact that I was an early supporter of this legislation known as a matter of record. I am a strong supporter of the IRS restructuring and reform bill. I think the time has come to significantly restructure the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. Recently, incidents of abuse within the IRS have been spotlighted at congressional hearings proving what many of us have suspected all along: that certain divisions within the IRS believe that a taxpayer is guilty until proven innocent. This bill is really quite historic. It will provide a major overhaul of the IRS, and give citizens who become involved in disputes with the IRS 28 new protections designed to enhance taxpayer rights. One of the most important things this bill will do is to strengthen the rights of taxpayers by placing the burden of proof in certain disputed cases, on the IRS, rather than on the taxpayer. I am such a strong supporter of this legislation because, even in the relatively short time I have been in office, I have already encountered dozens of constituents who are involved in disputes with the IRS. In a surprisingly large number of these cases, my constituents ended up seeking my assistance because they had cooperated fully with the IRS, but were getting nowhere. In fact, oftentimes their efforts to settle the problem were being stymied by the very agency with whom they were trying to comply. I have one constituent by the name of Craig Dietz, a public school teacher in Denver, whose story is indicative of the kind of problems so many of us have had with the Internal Revenue Service. Earlier this year, Craig received a letter from the IRS stating that he owed over $500 from income he received as a nonemployee of the Jewish Center in Columbus, OH. Not only has Craig never worked for the Jewish Center in Columbus, he has never even been to Ohio. When he notified the IRS of their mistake, they responded with a very long and technical letter telling him it was his responsibility to contact the Jewish Center in Ohio, which he consequently did and received confirmation that there was no record of his employment. After receiving this information, the IRS still continued to pursue the case, and it was at this point that Craig contacted my office. Shortly after my office got involved, the IRS closed the case. Throughout this entire ordeal, Craig was not able to speak to an actual person at the IRS in order to state his case in person because his repeated calls were never returned. It took 6 months of hassle and aggravation, and might have taken much longer without intervention, to settle what was a relatively simple mistake on the part of the IRS. This is just one example of the stories I have heard of honorable citizens who simply want to rectify a bad situation and move on. We need to make sure that honest taxpayers are not unduly persecuted. This bill will provide some relief to a very serious problem and open the doors to a new era of taxpayer rights.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Walter Capps had a keen intellect. He had a kind heart, and, most of all, he had a gentle soul. I know we will all miss Walter. But for me, my service in Congress will never be exactly the same, because Walter was my friend.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be clear. Many of us understand that we need a sensible policy for getting rid of nuclear waste that threatens many of our metropolitan areas. In my City of Denver, we are right downwind of some nuclear waste at Rocky Flats that will need to be disposed of. But we should not send this waste to uncertified sites and we should not send this waste along urban corridors that are going to be destructive for transportation purposes. The National Waste Technical Review Board, a nonpartisan body created by Congress to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the Department of Energy's program to manage the permanent disposal of the Nation's civilian spent fuel and high- level radioactive waste issued its report to Congress in March. The Board believes that the viability assessment, which will be completed by September 30, 1998, will not provide adequate information for establishing Yucca Mountain as a repository site. Mr. Chairman, the gallery is not in order and it is difficult for me to proceed. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically, the board's report states that a decision to locate the Nation's primary centralized storage facility for spent fuel at or near Yucca Mountain should be deferred until the suitability of the site as a repository location has been determined. The suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent site will not even be determined until the year 2001. Why then are we going to send this high-level nuclear waste from the East Coast, from around the country, across 40 States of this country, including places like the Mousetrap, which as Members can see through this map, runs right through the center of downtown Denver, and the location in which 8 years ago a torpedo fell off a truck completely shutting down the city for 8 hours? Why would we send this waste to an uncertified site only to have it be sent somewhere else? And why would we send it through corridors like downtown metropolitan areas where millions of citizens could be at risk? It makes no sense. I do not understand where we are rushing to transport this nuclear waste until the site is certified. In addition, there is no national standard requiring emergency response training for communities along transportation routes so if there is an accident in the Mousetrap the local law enforcement officers know what to do. There is no requirement that these officials even be notified of the transport. For all of these reasons, this is a premature bill, it is a bad response to a very real problem that we have in this country. I urge my colleagues to oppose passage of this bill until we find a permanent site for this nuclear waste and until we find a reasonable transportation solution.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because it fails to address the concerns my colleagues and I have with this nuclear waste bill. The Committee on Rules decided not to grant an open rule for the consideration of the bill, and it has precluded debate on the important environmental aspects of the bill. I am deeply concerned that, given the importance of this legislation and given the severe environmental impacts, that the process for full, fair and open debate has been precluded. In the Committee on Commerce I offered an amendment which would require that the interim and permanent nuclear waste storage disposal site conform to the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. In the Committee on Rules my colleague from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and I wanted to offer this amendment on the floor. We believe it is important that NEPA allow a thorough review of the environmental aspects when the Federal Government undertakes a major action, such as storage of high- level nuclear waste at this site. We have the NEPA law in effect today because there is an important need for the Federal Government to honestly consider all of the ramifications and options before it takes such an important environmental step. In this case, we are going to pool high-level nuclear waste from our Nation's power plants which will stay there for the next 10 to 10,000 years. This is an environmental impact we cannot ignore. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this November will see the retirement from the Colorado Air National Guard of an individual I wish to commend. Brig. Gen. Salvatore ``Sal'' Villano, Jr. brought to the National Guard a patriotic commitment to his country. But he also brought a strong desire to involve the Guard in the community it serves. Sal Villano grew up in the part of my district known as North Denver. Anyone who knows North Denver knows it to be a neighborhood with a long history of strong family and ethnic ties. There Sal learned the value of honest work and spiritual integrity. These values guided General Villano's rise in the Air National Guard. He saw it as his duty to lead with energy and integrity. But he saw it as his personal mission to have the Guard promote the general welfare while providing for the common defense of the Nation. General Villano worked hard to bring armories to close-knit Colorado communities. The new Denver armory, conceived by Sal as an armory on the weekend and a neighborhood center during the week, is a good example of his vision to marry the Guard's mission with a community need. He pushed tirelessly to start innovative programs to turn troubled teens around. And, he took seriously his role to keep drugs off Colorado streets. Mr. Speaker, America and the National Guard can learn a lesson from Gen. Sal Villano, a good kid from North Denver.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, and that sounds kind of good, ``Madam Speaker,'' when 18 women established the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues in 1977, little did they realize that their brainchild would be the single most important tool for advancing issues most important to American women. One of the most pressing issues that is facing women and families today, and as we move into the next century, is child care. I know this personally, having faced struggles in child care in just the last few months in moving in the Washington area and looking for quality child care for my two young girls. Madam Speaker, finding child care for me was tough, but finding child care for low-income women and families, where a dollar spent on child care means a dollar less on food or rent, is even harder. That is why I applaud the efforts of the Women's Congressional Caucus and the White House, which this week is holding a conference on child care, the first of its kind ever. Mothers and families should not have to choose between work and adequate child care. That is why the Women's Caucus has been, and continues to be, a strong advocate for quality child care.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last spring a woman came to my office with her infant son whom she loved, and you could tell the love was obvious. Tragically for this woman, this was not the first pregnancy she had had. She had lost a previous baby months along in the cycle through no fault of her own, and she had used this procedure after consulting with her husband, her family, and her doctor. Mr. Speaker, not very many women are forced to use this procedure. In 1992, the most recent year for which we have statistics, only 0.4 percent of all abortions take place after 26 weeks when this procedure becomes necessary. Like the women in my office, like the women that my colleagues have talked about today, every single one of these women who are facing these late-term procedures are facing threats to their life or threats to their health or they are carrying a fetus with severe abnormalities that will not survive. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this legislation even now, and that is why this piece of legislation is unconstitutional and should not be passed. Mr. Speaker, the terms are so vague that like the 10 States that have struck down the State legislation, this legislation will not be held constitutional and should not be passed. Mr. Speaker, I have a question as a new Member of Congress. Why are we voting on this piece of legislation again and again and again and again and again? It is all we have talked about in my first 10 months of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear. In the 1998 elections, the Republicans think they can saddle people with this. The women of America are not going to accept it. The women of America need to make this decision in consultation with their families and their doctors. Let us move beyond this to rational family planning so we can avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I appear tonight on behalf of my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] who was unavoidably detained at a speech in her district with some constituents. The gentlewoman and I are both concerned, as she is the former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and I am a former employment lawyer. We would like to commend the chairman on the fine job he has done in putting together this bill. We believe that this is fairly bipartisan and equitable. However, we do have an area of concern, and we ask to bring this issue to the chairman's attention. The chair has a formidable backlog, caused in part by very new and very complicated jurisdictions. The commission is our Nation's principle enforcer of such landmark legislation as the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are concerned that without an increase in funding for the EEOC, we will not be able to decrease this backlog in cases. The EEOC received roughly $240 million in its fiscal year 1997 budget, and it has been appropriated the same amount for the fiscal year 1998 budget, but yet, we have an increase in backlog of cases. The President has requested $246 million, which we feel is a modest increase, but which will help us attack the backlog of approximately 80,000 cases. My colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I, as well as others, were prepared to bring an amendment to the floor tonight that would have brought the EEOC funding level to the President's request. However, in deference to the negotiations on this bill and the tight fiscal constraints, we would like to work with the chairman in conference to work out this discrepancy in funding.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, tobacco does not discriminate. Tobacco kills people, young and old, black and white, American and Thai alike. Yet it seems that our Government discriminates when it comes to tobacco. At home, the U.S. Government spends millions of dollars every year on tobacco prevention programs and is currently engaged in the most aggressive effort to date to curb youth smoking in America. But abroad in Asia, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the U.S. Government works hand in hand with tobacco companies to promote its product and increase its use in the overseas marketplace. What does this say about how our Government values human life? Is a life in downtown Washington more precious than a life in Bangkok? Tobacco does not discriminate, and neither should we. There is a real difference between a company voicing legitimate international trade concerns and the tobacco industry's use of the Federal Government as a school yard bully to force foreign governments to subject their young to a barrage of cigarette marketing. It is a black eye for American diplomacy. There is no doubt the entry of American tobacco overseas has dramatically increased consumption worldwide. In Taiwan, smoking rates of high school students jumped from 22 to 32 percent in the 2 years after American cigarettes were introduced. In Korea, the rate for male teens grew from 18 to 30 percent in just 1 year. In Japan, 26 percent of high school senior girls were smoking in 1990 after U.S. cigarettes were introduced. Let us face it, tobacco companies do not need an extra boost from our Government to thrive overseas. That is why since 1993 we have banned such activity by the Agriculture Department by prohibiting the agency from promoting tobacco through the market access program. As Congress embarks on the historic negotiations to reduce smoking at home, it would be inhumane for us to continue supporting this smoking abroad.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, each year publicly funded family planning prevents 386,000 unintended pregnancies to teenagers, it prevents 155,000 teenage births, and it prevents 183,000 abortions. If we are going to stand here and try to say with a straight face that parental notification of birth control is going to prevent teenagers from having sex, we are living in an Ozzie and Harriet world that has not existed in this country, if it ever existed, for 40 or 50 years. If we want to prevent these unintended pregnancies, if we want to prevent unintended disease and if we want to prevent all of these things from happening, we need to have family planning service. I happen to believe, as all of us do, that children should not have sex as teenagers and that we should teach abstinence-based sex education to our teenagers. But let us be realistic. Parental notification is not going to stop teenagers from having sex. What it will do is take that chart that has been shown by the proponents of the Istook amendment throughout the afternoon and evening and it is going to take that line that shows increased unwanted teenage pregnancies and it is going to put that line right off the top of that chart. That is not what any of us want here today. Just listen to some of the comments that teenagers themselves have made in my district when they were asked the question of what would happen if they had to talk to their parents before getting birth control. These are teenagers, some of them came from good homes, but did not feel they could talk to their parents, and some came from bad homes where they might have been victims of incest or child abuse. One 17-year-old said: ``I don't think it's a good idea, because more teens will do it unprotected rather than having their parents know that they are having sex.'' Another honest girl told the surveyors that, quote, ``I wouldn't have come here if I had to have a parent with me and I think a lot of other people wouldn't, either.'' Let us listen to the word from the teenagers. I too have two young daughters, and I care more about them than I care about anything in this world. I love my daughters, I talk to them every day. Luckily for me, they are not 12 yet, but they are 3 and 7. I am heartsick at the idea that one of them may have sex before they are ready, before they are an adult. I am even more heartsick at the thought that one of my precious girls might have an unintended pregnancy or, worse, a fatal disease because, for whatever reason, they did not feel that they could come to my husband or to me. For that reason, I urge Members' opposition to the Istook amendment.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Burton- DeGette amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for his support and efforts on behalf of We The People. I can think of no better lesson for the students of this country than the value of bipartisanship where we can find it, and this amendment is a great example in this regard. I know firsthand how well this program works, because there is a high school back in my district in Denver, East High School, whose students have done extraordinarily well in the We The People competitions over the last decade. East High School has been among the top 10 finalists seven times in the last 9 years, and they won the competition in 1992. This year they came to Washington once again and won honorable mention by placing in the top seven of the national competition. I know about East High School's great achievements because for several years in the early 1990's I was a volunteer coach for the East High School Bill of Rights team, and I will tell you that these high school students, even though I was a practicing attorney, often knew a lot more about the Bill of Rights as a result of the We The People program than I did. So I am a strong proponent of this program, and I believe that not only should it be continued at the high school level, but extended to junior high schools as well. Mr. Chairman, a lot of times we as policymakers all ask ourselves the question, how do you solve the problem of a disenchanted and cynical electorate? I do not think there is a magical solution, but I think programs like We The People come very close to providing as good a remedy as we will ever get. In an era where political ambivalence, voter apathy, and distrust of government characterizes too many of our constituents, it is essential that we should support a program for high school and junior high school students to learn about their government and learn how important players they can be. The $1 million in the Burton-DeGette amendment provided to We The People will allow it to expand its Project Citizen Program designed for students in grades 6 through 9, the optimum age, according to researchers, for building student interest in civic life and politics. Project Citizen calls on students to work together on a class project to identify and study a public policy issue of particular interest to them. Project Citizen focuses students' attention on behalf of State and local governments, which are often neglected in civics courses and textbooks, even though they are the levels of government most often utilized and immediately affecting the lives of citizens. The increased funding will be used to fully implement the Project Citizen Program in all 50 States and help it become as quality a civic education program for middle school students as the We The People Program is for the high school students. When we first started working on this program at East High School, very few schools actually participated. In the 10 years since the program began, though, over 75,000 teachers have implemented the We The People Program in the classroom. I think that this growth in 10 years speaks for itself about the success of the program. This program, I believe, can really change attitudes toward government and toward what government can do in our society. Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I really again applaud my colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for offering this amendment with me, and urge my colleagues to accept the Burton-DeGette amendment.

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not understand some of the arguments in favor of the Smith amendment, because it seems to me that if we oppose unnecessary abortions, as I do, and as I think everyone here does, then we would support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment and oppose the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment would cause women in developing countries to face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair. What it would do is prevent birth control information and family planning information from going to women in developing countries who desperately need it. It will increase abortions and it will jeopardize the health of millions of women and children internationally. The Smith amendment will deny funding to international family planning organizations who are giving women desperately needed reproductive health services and delivering vital pre- and post-natal care. I do not see anybody else who is going to do that, other than the fine organizations who are performing those services now. For that reason, I would oppose the Smith amendment and support the Gilman- Pelosi amendment.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have a question for the gentleman from Wisconsin. As the gentleman knows, there are a number of controversies associated with this project, most notably environmental and cost concerns, and as he mentioned, there are currently negotiations underway attempting to address these problems and come up with an alternative that addresses both of these concerns. We are calling it the Romer-Schoettler process in Colorado and every place else. What I am wondering is, if the gentleman's amendment would in any way prohibit any Department of Interior personnel from participating in the Romer-Schoettler process or in any way exclude or interfere with this resolution process?

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, just so that I may follow up, there are currently approximately $8.2 million in unobligated funds in the Animas LaPlata account. Under this amendment, could these funds be used for the continued involvement of Department of Interior personnel in the Romer-Schoettler negotiations or any other negotiations designed to develop an alternative that will resolve the environmental and cost concerns associated with this project?

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, one of the measures of a strong and prosperous nation is its ability and willingness to take care of its neediest communities. I believe, we as a country, have an obligation to address the problems of our most vulnerable citizens. We have a whole wealth of new research indicating importance of proper care for children, particularly at-risk children during their first few years of life. The very least we can do for these young children is to make sure that they have access to proper nutrition during these formative years. WIC has been proven to be one of our most successful programs at reducing low birth weight, infant mortality, and child anemia. It is one of the most effective social programs that we have. Why, then, would we fund WIC coming out of the committee $30 million short of what we need to simply maintain the current caseload in 1998? This subtraction of the $30 million will have a direct impact on children's health in this country. I think that the cost could be exacerbated, in fact, if the cost of food is higher in fiscal year 1998. I think we need to look carefully at funding this program at levels that we have funded it in the past. I am sympathetic with the concerns of small farmers, but the money that this amendment is taking it from comes from insurance premiums. A GAO study in fact showed that the money that these insurance agents are taking from this program is being used for things like skyboxes. And frankly, if you weigh children's nutrition and healthful food and infant formula against skyboxes, I think the choice is pretty clear. This is not an intention to hurt farmers. And in fact, I think that we should support our farmers of this country, and I think the farmers of this country would support and do support programs that benefit young children. And so, for those reasons, I think this is a great amendment. I thank the gentleman for raising it.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in 1989 Pat Rose died of lung cancer after smoking for 38 years, starting at the age of 16. Pat Rose was my mother, and she left behind me and my four younger siblings. Millions of Americans like my family are affected every year by smoking, and a new study shows that thousands of kids in this country every year die because of direct or indirect effects of smoking. The United States recognizes that smoking is not good for our children or our families, which is why last year we spent $200 million trying to get Americans to stop smoking. Paradoxically, last year we also spent $80 million for tobacco crop insurance. This is a policy that is schizophrenic and must change now. Let us debunk some myths, first of all. Members have heard that not every farmer has crop insurance. Only about 65 of the 1,600 crops grown in this country receive it. Healthy crops, as Members have heard, do not get a dime of Federal crop insurance, yet tobacco crops, which have no nutritional value, obtained this insurance. When our amendment passes, tobacco farmers can still obtain crop insurance, just not at the Government's expense. I daresay that as we move from tobacco in this country, we need to spend our time not arguing about whether we should grow it, but helping these small farmers to find alternative sources of income. I am very sympathetic with the small farmers. I think we need to support their ability to move into healthy crops. I also daresay there are many small tobacco farmers who are killed by the effects of smoking and whose families are affected by smoking as well. I urge all of my colleagues to think about our constituents, our friends and our families who are struck every year with the effects of tobacco, and the fact that smoking is increasing more than 50 percent among 8th through 10th graders. We must do everything in our power to discourage tobacco and to help the small farmers.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would also add to the words of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, to point out that our tobacco policy in this country is inconsistent. Last year we spent nearly $200 million to prevent tobacco use, and we spent $80 million on tobacco crop insurance subsidies. That is why the Lowey-DeGette-Hansen-Meehan amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. That is why it would be a real crime if we limited the debate on this issue to just a few minutes per side. There are many voices on both sides of the aisle that have a lot to say about the tobacco policy in this country, about a policy that is killing millions of Americans and causing millions of young people to begin smoking every year. That is why I would hope that this rule would not be limited, and I would also join my colleagues in urging the Committee on Rules to rethink any such proposed rule.

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for the work they have done on this bill. As the distinguished chairman from California knows, I was inclined to offer an amendment to title II of this bill to increase the community development block grant by $25 million for the redevelopment of polluted urban brownfield sites. I understand that the chairman supports brownfields redevelopment, but has some concerns about dealing with this particular initiative which has not been authorized in this bill. I can appreciate that. By agreement, we have decided not to offer the amendment today. I would like to speak for a few minutes, however, about the need to undertake brownfields development. I was disappointed to learn that this legislation today does not include the $25 million request from the administration to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for grants for redevelopment of brownfields. As Members know, title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make grants to units of local government and States for local community development programs. The primary objective of the block grant program is to develop viable urban communities and to expand economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons. Mr. Chairman, that gets to the heart of what I, along with my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], today am trying to do here. The money we are talking about in this amendment would go toward the block grant program to develop these viable urban communities and expand economic opportunities. I can say that spending a lot of time in my own community, I know how vital redevelopment of brownfields can be in urban areas and how exciting it can be when these areas are redeveloped. As it is, brownfields are a blight on our urban and rural landscape. They are oftentimes abandoned industrial or commercial sites which remained undeveloped due to the uncertainty which surrounds them. There is an estimate that there are approximately 450,000 brownfield sites around the country, many of them in urban areas but also some in suburban and rural areas. I have been encouraged by the administration's brownfields request for the EPA brownfields initiative and that it has been appropriated $85 million. However, this money is to be used only for assessment activities, not for cleanup actions and redevelopment. I have personal experience with brownfields because I sponsored successful legislation in Colorado in 1993 which has now been used for over 60 brownfield sites in the State of Colorado, not simply assessment but to actually clean up those sites. If we are truly to clean up our urban communities, if we are truly to develop urban areas, then we need to look at all possible areas in the Government, not just the EPA but also HUD, to really appropriate money. So that is why I am pleased that the chairman and the ranking member have both agreed to work with us to find as much money as we can to put towards this brownfields redevelopment, and I do want to thank the Chair for recognizing me today.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of points made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. First of all, this issue that everybody, all of the recreational users, are using these roads. In fact, the GAO has stated that 70 percent of all Forest Service roads are designated as closed to vehicular traffic or for rough, high clearance vehicles. These logging roads are built for and used primarily by logging companies, and are generally inaccessible to vehicles driven by most Americans. I spent a lot of time in the national forests in my State, and I will tell Members that recreational users do not use these logging roads. Second, with respect to the thought that housing sales will drastically increase if we cut this program, the truth is only 4 percent of all timber activity in the United States occurs in our national forests, and yet there are 377,000 miles of roads crisscrossing these areas. This is eight times the length of the highway system, and it seems incredibly disproportionate to be building these roads, as well as incredibly unlikely that housing costs will go up if we simply stop this program. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to add my two cents as a westerner, because I know exactly the damage that timber roads can do to the environment and to the health of our forest ecosystems, as well as the wasting of the taxpayers' money. When we do this kind of clear-cutting in western forests, we wreak havoc on wildlife and we decimate mountainsides for floods. We have seen a lot of this in Idaho with the recent flood damage, and the fact that a lot of the mudslides have been caused by timber roads in our national forests. It is ecologically wrong and it is a financial drain on our budget. We should simply vote against the Dicks amendment. It does not cut enough. We should vote for the Kennedy-Porter amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for raising these important issue.