Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the Denver Police and Fire Widows have asked me to please pay tribute to Mr. Abe Friedman of Jamaica, NY and it is a great honor to have the ability to do so. It is not possible to reiterate all the good, kind, and charitable acts Abe Friedman has provided these women over the years. We all innately understand the terrible circumstances that revolve around losing one's loved one. While no one can give back the husbands these women lost, Mr. Friedman has gone above and beyond the call of duty to give these women the comfort and respect they so rightfully deserve. To the widows of the Denver Police and Fire Departments, his unending concern for their happiness is one of the most endearing memories of those years they lovingly spent as a member of a police or fire family. On Sunday, May 18, 1997, these women assembled as guests of Mr. Friedman to celebrate the Seventh Annual Spring Extravaganza to celebrate Mother's Day. He spent the day toasting and honoring the many years each widow served as an integral part of a police or fire department family. This simple act was truly a sign of deep consideration for these women and was greatly appreciated by all in attendance. The Denver Police and Fire Widows are hopeful that this Congressional Record reading, in a small way, may convey to Abe Friedman their sincere and unending admiration. They are forever grateful for his many acts of thoughtfulness, attentiveness, and kindness which Abe Friedman has bestowed upon them simply with his friendship.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I support tax relief for working families in America. It is not right that so many hard-working parents are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, instead of helping these families today, we are slamming the door on them. We are telling school teachers, law enforcement officers, factory workers and nurses and every other hard-working American that we just do not care about their economic struggles. We are telling the next generation that we prefer tax giveaways to America's wealthy at the expense of real deficit reduction. Let me tell my colleagues what is really happening in my home State of Colorado. Forty percent of the kids under this proposal will be left behind, kids from moderate and low-income families. Nearly 96 percent of the 23 million children whose parents earn less than $23,000 would be denied any child care credit under this bill. This is inexcusable. I urge my colleagues to pause for a moment and think about what this means to their constituents back home, think about the struggling families they are leaving behind with this bill, think about the next generation. Let us pave a straight path, not a U-turn.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear what this amendment is about. This amendment is not about abortion. This amendment is about family planning. If we went to the door of every household in this country and said, do you think our Government should be involved in family planning efforts throughout the world so that women are not forced against their will to have countless unwanted children, children who will be subject to starvation, children who will be subject to disease, so that the women can avoid the pregnancy to begin with, so that the woman can avoid abortion, these families across America would say yes, we think that that is a high use of our taxpayer dollars. We think that America should be working across the world to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to help increase the quality of life for citizens around the world. That is a noble purpose. Let us be clear. The current U.S. policy prevents Federal funds from being used for abortions anywhere in the world. This is not going to be changed. What this amendment will do is prevent women across the world from planning their pregnancies and avoiding unwanted pregnancies. That is not the policy the United States should pursue. That is why just last month or the month before, this Congress affirmed the right of the United States to increase its family planning efforts nationwide. I urge Members to defeat this amendment, to keep our appropriate policy throughout the world, and prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I must say I am a little puzzled about this amendment, because I support notification when sex offenders are released. I was the original cosponsor of Megan's law in Colorado. My concern, though, is when we have a requirement that the parents be notified directly in this situation rather than the school officials. I am concerned about innocent people mistakenly being identified and neighbors or parents having some kind of vigilantism. So I guess I would have a question for the sponsor: If States promulgated laws which notified school officials and then they could decide how to notify the parents, would that be acceptable and make the States eligible for the Byrne grant funding under this amendment? If so, I will support the amendment. If not, I think it could encourage vigilantism which could even be worse for students, innocent students, if the parents were directly notified and a student had erroneously been identified as a sex offender.

Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to qualify my vote for Representative Dunn's amendment to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. Representative Dunn has advised me that it is her intention that her amendment would allow States to develop plans which provide for the notification of school officials of the presence of juvenile sex offenders, and for those officials to appropriately inform parents. States with plans such as this would qualify for the Byrne grant funds. I support appropriate notification of communities when sex offenders are released but I am also concerned that direct notification of parents could cause vigilantism. The rationale behind notification is to provide for the safest environment to the community. Providing this information, without context or supervision by school officials, could undermine the intended results. An example of the unfortunate circumstances that this amendment could lead to happened quite recently. In Manhattan, KS, the completely innocent Lumpkins family was unfairly victimized by their community when a list of sexual offenders in the area included their address. People threw rocks at their home and their daughter was harassed by neighbors. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation admitted it was an easy mistake to make. In schools, similar vigilante action would be prevented by notification of official and development by the school of guidelines for the method and details of parents suitable to the situation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 478, a bill which would gut the Endangered Species Act and which would be disastrous to imperiled species and ecosystems. It is inconceivable to me how blame has been placed so readily and so callously on the Endangered Species Act for causing and aggravating the recent flooding in California. This is simply not the case. Rather, a shortage of funds, design flaws, and water management practices all contributed to this flood damage. This bill exempts the reconstruction, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation or replacement of any flood control facility from the requirement to protect endangered species at any time. Any activity related to a flood control facility, such as dredging, would be exempted from these requirements. It is here, however, that the legislation's true effect is revealed. The ESA exemption to flood control facilities is permanent. As a result, the exemption would not have to be examined within the wider context of the total ESA provisions. Currently, protection for endangered species is distributed equally among all parties which impact that species. This bill would remove flood control activities from the responsibility and shift it to others. That is why I support the substitute amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so, and I urge them to oppose this inaptly named legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman, and I thought I made that clear in my statement, that I do understand that this is supported. My only point is that I think it should have been in the original language of the bill, and I appreciate the cooperation in now putting it in because child care really is essential in these situations.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for accepting my amendment to allow local housing authorities to use their operating funds to provide child care services for public housing residents. I know this issue pales in comparison to the last issue that was discussed but it really raises the reason why legislation like this is really not designed to empower poor people to go out and work when they live in housing projects. The fact that child care was omitted from the original legislation shows that there is a real lack of understanding of what we need to do to help public housing residents empower themselves and go to work. The lack of day care can be devastating to poor families who are trying to work, who are trying to go into the work force, and it is the height of hypocrisy to impose all of the onerous restrictions that we see in this bill and to ignore child care. My amendment does not fix all of these unacceptable provisions, but what it does say is that the public housing authorities can use operating funds at their discretion for child care. If we really wanted to look at thoughtful housing reform, we would look at a model that is in my district in Denver, CO. Warren Village is a program, a private program, that provides housing for single mothers who are trying to get back on their feet. Women can only live in this housing for 2 years and during those 2 years they are required to either work or take classes. However, most residents do both. When the program first started, there was no child care available and it became quickly apparent that these working mothers could not afford to go through the program because there was absolutely no way they could fulfill job or education requirements and, at the same time, have no child care. Warren Village quickly started raising money to start an on-site child care program, a program which I visited a few months ago. This child care program is one of the best in the country and what it does is teach the children of low-income housing residents that they can break the cycle at the same time their mothers are breaking the cycle. It is probably one of the main reasons that Warren Village has been so successful in getting women back on their feet. They are taking classes, they are getting job training, and, most importantly, they are keeping those jobs. If we truly want to look at ways that we can help residents of public housing get back on their feet, it is vital that we have child care, and that is why I am so pleased that both the chairman and the ranking member have agreed to put this child care provision in the legislation. Once we can fix the rest of the legislation and have a compassionate and thoughtful bill, we can help these residents keep their dignity and get back on their feet.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on the evening of Thursday, April 17, 1997, during rollcall vote No. 85. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, when I learned that this Congress would be considering legislation on physician-assisted suicide, I foresaw a lengthy discussion on the complex moral, legal, and ethical issues surrounding the issue because I am still examining this issue myself. But in fact, none of that has occurred because the legislation being considered does nothing. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Let me be clear again. Physician-assisted suicide is not legal today. No Federal dollars are being used for this purpose and, in fact, the agencies that give money to doctors and hospitals specifically prohibit the use of Federal funds for this purpose. So by simply considering a ban on moneys that are already prohibited, we are ignoring the truly sensitive ethical and cultural issues raised by physician-assisted suicide. We are leaving unanswered the most pressing questions in this debate. Should individuals be entitled to choose for themselves how and when they may end their lives? Is there a constitutional right to privacy or equal protection which warrants such a policy? Are health care providers obligated to help mentally competent and terminally ill patients end their lives? Today instead of exploring these tough questions and learning from providers like Hospice on the front lines of end-of-life care, we are considering an empty piece of legislation. As I said, I do not have a position on Federal regulation of physician-assisted suicide, but I think that Congress could play an important role in looking at humane and palliative end-of-life care and how do we best educate doctors. Now, let me say, if the courts do allow physician-assisted suicide, let us look at legislation then. But in the meantime, Congress should be in the business of encouraging broad public discussion, not cutting off debate in this Chamber or, worse, wasting our time and our money enacting a solution that is in search of a problem and giving the public the false belief that we are actually doing something on this issue. I intend to oppose this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. There has been a great deal of distortion spread about this so-called partial-birth ban. First of all, this bill does not ban abortions, even post viability. It would still allow post viability abortions. What it does do is outlaw an ill-defined medical procedure. It stops a procedure which is so vaguely defined that it is not even recognized in medical literature because partial-birth is not a medical term at all. Tragically, deliberate confusion has driven this debate out of control to a point where rational people are ignoring the facts, their own principles and even their own hearts. We have just heard rhetoric today that the pro-choice community has distorted the facts on this procedure. Quite to the contrary. Neither side has concrete national or State statistics on the number of intact D&E procedures that are performed. Let us focus on what we do know and not on what we do not know. In 1992, the last year for which we have statistics, only .04 percent of all abortions even took place after 26 weeks when this procedure may become necessary. At this stage, every single one of these women were facing threats to their life or health or were carrying a fetus with severe abnormalities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think rationally. To assume that any woman would choose this tragic procedure after carrying a healthy fetus for 8 or 9 months is offensive to the women who are facing this gruesome decision and it is offensive to all women. I think if my colleagues had had the opportunity to hear Eileen Sullivan testify before the Committee on the Judiciary last week, they would understand how frightening and dangerous this proposed ban is to women. Eileen is 1 of 11 children in an Irish Catholic family. She faced this tragedy in the eighth month. She stated to the committee: We wept. We discussed what to do, what was best and safest, and in the end she, her husband, and her doctor made this tragic choice. Eileen Sullivan chose this procedure as a last resort. She and her husband desperately wanted this baby, but the pregnancy had gone awry. To ban this procedure for women like Ms. Sullivan who face no other option will deprive them of their lives or their future ability to have children. Let me be clear to those who are unsure of the serious ramifications of this bill or the meaning of their vote today. In the 24 years since Roe versus Wade, American women have never been in more danger of losing their right to choose their own health decisions than they are today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a topic that is close to all of our hearts, children's health. Like many of my colleagues, I am blessed with two healthy children, but 10 million parents in this country have little or no access to health care for their children. And, worse, more and more of these uninsured children are being exposed to environmental hazards that render horrible illnesses with no cure. As Congress works to improve health coverage for children, I urge them to promote policies that promote health care for children, especially remediation of environmental hazards. Today, children live in an environment that is vastly different from those of past generations. While all children are exposed to environmental health hazards, children living in poverty are at a disproportionate risk. Survey after survey shows that toxic waste dumps, lead paint and high pollution are most often located in or near low-income neighborhoods. With limited access to health care, children exposed to environmental hazards face multiple risks of illness, including asthma and lead poisoning. Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to address in a serious way health care for children.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievement of the NetDay project in its efforts to connect schools and libraries across the country to the Internet. My 7-year-old daughter's computer skills put mine to shame, and I think that's great. We all need to commit to preparing our kids for the technological requirements of the future. It is so important that all our kids, regardless of their backgrounds and resources, are provided with the kind of computer training that will allow them to compete in today's global economy. NetDay has emerged as a direct result of the universal access intent of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 and has been made possible through the efforts of thousands of volunteers in business, education, and neighborhood communities. I urge my colleagues to join the celebration of the spirit of volunteerism that has allowed NetDay to be the huge success it is.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to give every child and adult in this country the same opportunity that all of us took for granted in our youth: A decent education. How many times does Congress need to hear the statistics illustrating that quality education is the underpinning of opportunity before it makes education a Federal priority? When my grandfather was a boy, his eighth grade education prepared him to be vice president of the Rio Grande Railroad. When my mother was a young woman, her college degree prepared her to teach. Today I know my two young girls will not have a chance to compete or even to live comfortably without significant higher education. Yet everyday in our country, another child is left behind, illiteracy rates soar, and higher education grows further out of the financial reach of thousands. It would be laughable if it was not unforgivable that the U.S. Government spends less than 1 percent of its money on education. I urge the House to take this issue up immediately and with vigor.