Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in my District, I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, November 6th. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following motions on which a recorded vote was ordered: (1) Rollcall No. 426, H.R. 768, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act; (2) Rollcall No. 427, H.R. 1408, the Financial Services Antifraud Network Act; and (3) Rollcall No. 428, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3150, the Airline Security Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I intend to vote against this bill unless the Oberstar Amendment is incorporated in this bill. The other side of the aisle argues that federalization of passenger and baggage screeners is not in the best interest of promoting an efficient security process at our nation's airports. Covering these jobs under the umbrella of the Federal government, they argue, only makes government unnecessarily bigger and makes it impossible to dismiss Federally-employed security personnel for mal- or misfeasance. Those arguments are bogus, and the leadership of this Chamber should be ashamed of itself for deliberately distorting the terms of the Senate-passed Airline Security bill. Even if the Senate-passed bill proposed extending federal job protections to passenger and baggage security personnel, I would have to ask if that would be so bad for the American traveling public. Don't American air passengers deserve to feel as secure in our airports as they do when visiting a Federal courthouse? I suggest they do. Security at our Federal courthouses are provided by the Federal Protective Services, an entity of the Federal government. I submit that air travelers are entitled to the same level of security. The Senate bill does not provide airport security personnel with the job protections established under the Civil Service System. The bill provides little tolerance for any security employee who fails to perform his or her job thoroughly and accurately. To say that federalization of the airport security workforce will only reward lazy, incompetent, and overpaid security personnel is a total distortion. Another argument raised by the majority is that the Leadership proposal models the system used in European countries and Israel. I have no disagreement with that argument. The weakness in the assertion, however, is that the same security contractors serving the nation's airports today are the same security contractors found at most international airports. These contractors may work well overseas but in providing for our homeland security, they have failed. Look at the record. Turnover among initial security personnel exceeds 400 percent at some airports. Contractors fail to conduct criminal background checks on the people they hire. In fact, one company was recently fined for hiring security personnel with prior arrest records. The pattern is clear. Current security contractors hire security personnel at minimum wages to provide the flying public minimum airline security. Do I want these same companies to be rewarded with larger contracts, so they can cover higher overhead costs because of stricter requirements? No! The private sector has failed to make America's air transport system secure, and it is now the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure the security of our airports. Another aspect of H.R. 3150 which I find particularly offensive is a provision that will exempt all corporate interests from liability from the September 11 assault. The families and survivors of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon tragedies will have little recourse to seek accountability for the negligent acts of a corporation which may have encouraged the terrorists to succeed in prosecuting their attacks on innocent Americans. In other words, this bill will protect even a private airport baggage screening company that may ultimately be found to have recklessly allowed a breakdown in security protocols. In early October, this body passed the Air Transportation System Stabilization Act. I opposed that bill because it represented a bailout of the airline industry and a Federal wage protection program for highly paid airline executives. It did NOTHING for rank and file airline industry employees dislocated in the wake of September 11 attack. Once again, the Leadership is sponsoring a bill that rewards corporate interests and ignores the wage replacement and health insurance coverage needs of dislocated airline workers. Mr. Chairman, this bill does little to restore the passengers' confidence in the safety and security of the national air transport system, and it protects corporate interests for past failures to protect the air traveling public. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by Mr. Oberstar and, failing that, oppose the passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 3150.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, recently the House considered its version of the Counter Terrorism bill H.R. 2975. I voted against that measure. I voted against that bill for many of the very same provisions in H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism measure before us today. As such, I must also vote against H.R. 3162. I would, first, like to commend the work of Mr. Conyers. He has stood steadfast and vigilant in attempt to protect the civil liberties of our nation's citizens. I, like many in this body, fear that our nation's tradition of civil liberties will be sacrificed at the alter of our war on terrorism. Do not be mistaken, for I realize that terrorism is a clear and present evil that our country faces--worthy of vigorous combat to defeat it. However, if, in our effort to stamp out terrorism, we stamp out the very freedoms that make us Americans, we will have made a grave mistake. I will vote against this bill and express my opinion that vigilance must abide to ensure that our nation does not succumb to terrorism from beyond, but also to ensure that we do not succumb to tyranny from within as well. I raise my voice to state forthrightly that I will be vigilante of all of those who seek to take advantage of the predicament that our new war on terrorism presents. This measure grants our nation's legal apparatus new and unprecedented powers. Power that, if unchecked, could easily be used to trample over our hard won liberties. It is true that many objectionable measures have been eliminated from the bill. No longer does the bill allow the indefinite detention of aliens prior to trial. I am particularly pleased that the measure provides for a new Inspector General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to ensure that these laws are not used to trample our freedoms. It is also good to know that a person cannot be convicted of evidence from a foreign country that would not be admissible in U.S. courts. Although these important changes have been made, the measure still raises significant concerns. The bill contains language sunsetting its provisions in a 4-year period. While this is better than nothing I have no doubt that we should revisit these laws in two years time to assess the government's administration of them. This bill allows the use of roving wiretaps. This means one judge can issue an order that allows the authorities to listen to any phone that a suspect may potentially use. Here, I fear any shaky justification given by authorities can be used to order wiretaps on a broad and sweeping level, possibly leading to tapping the lines of many who are not at all related to the neither a terrorist, nor criminal plot. The bill also expands the authority of the government to conduct so- called sneak and peak searches. Imagine your house was wiretapped based inadequate suspicion giving rise to the authorization of a roving wiretap of a third-party suspected terrorist. Imagine further that based on evidence from this roving wiretap, the police are authorized to come in and search your home and personal belongings without notifying you. Surely these powers should be reviewed at least within a two-year period. These scenarios could play out in infinite ways. There are unforeseen variables that we just cannot quantify that may allow authorities to abuse the rights of our citizens. If we had truly been given the opportunity to debate these issues in their entirety on the floor of the House, we probably could have resolved them in a way that sufficiently balanced our security needs against our civil rights. After all, following vigorous debate, the measure presented by the House Committee on the Judiciary passed with unanimous support. It was my desire to see vigorous debate on the floor of the House so that at Conference a measure could be crafted that would have received the unanimous vote of both the House and Senate and the support of the White House. Unfortunately, the Republican Majority and the White House had alternative plans. It is unfortunate that my only hope is that the new Inspector General will be vigorous in its assessment of the government's activity. The Inspector General will need to act decisively and with authority given the unprecedented authority we bestow on the government today. In light of this, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, nearly 2 weeks ago the Senate passed a bill on airline safety. It is now time for the House to take up that bill, and we would urge the leadership of the House to bring that bill forward immediately. We took care of the airlines. We have not taken care of the industry: the riders, the American people, the people who work in the airports, the airports, the concessionaires. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we take care of security, that we have all bags checked as they go onto our planes, and we make sure that the screeners who screen us are conviction-free and are able to do the jobs that it will take to secure the safety of the American flying public. Bring the bill forward now. We must protect Americans' right to ride airplanes, and we must protect the airports and the people who work in them.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the democratic substitute, which is a real economic stimulus and economic recovery for Americans who need it. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a stimulus package. There is no provision in the bill that allocates money to the workers, unemployed or the uninsured. The tax deductions are significantly disproportionate, giving over 70% of the tax cuts to big businesses and very little to the working American. That is not the type of stimulus that Americans want or need. H.R. 3090 does little to assist those who may or have lost their jobs and their insurance because of the September 11 attacks. What the bill does is give a grant to the States and permits them to spend when and as they see fit. We need a bill that will put benefits directly in the hands of those who need it. The unemployed need COBRA and our government should assist them. The ultimate goal of Congress should be to pass a bill that puts money into the hands of those who need it and will spend it, the low- and moderate-income workers and families. Instead, this bill focuses on big corporations and the wealthy. A serious economic stimulus package will give unemployment and health insurance benefits to those who do not have it. It will build jobs for those who are unemployed. It will spend money to build economic programs and assist our transportation systems safer by expanding and reinforcing our out dated system. Any agenda that gives the majority of the tax breaks to the wealthy and big businesses will do little to stimulate the economy. The only apparent stimulus this bill can possibly have is assisting in Republican politics and that should not be our focus. We need to act swiftly in assisting our country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to be present during legislative business on Tuesday, October 23, 2001. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3086, The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, Rollcall No. 395; on H.R. 3160, The Bioterrorism Prevention Act, Rollcall No. 396; and H.R. 2924, Rewards to Protect the Federal Power Marketing Administrations.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, earlier today my plane was canceled and I missed two votes on H.R. 3162. I would like the Record to indicate that on rollcall 398 I would have voted ``no'' and on rollcall 399 I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, official business requires my presence in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' on Rollcall No. 387, H. Con. Res. 248, expressing the sense of Congress that public schools may display the words ``God Bless America'' as an expression of support for the nation; ``Aye'' on Rollcall No. 388, H. Con. Res. 317, which recognizes the 15th Anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty; and ``Aye'' on Rollcall No. 389, H.R. 2272, the Coral Reef and Coastal Marine Conservation Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule and the antiterrorism bill we are considering today. While the current circumstances require expedited action, we must also be deliberate and circumspect in our action. I know these aims run counter to one another, but at this juncture in our history it is critical that we think before we act. The attacks on our nation have changed us forever causing strong demands for action to improve our security. Our response to terrorism, however, must not thwart the very democratic values that this nation was founded upon. Any legislative action we take must ensure that our traditions of civil liberty continue to stand strong--anything less would serve the goals of those who attacked us. Unfortunately, we are now poised to consider a measure that grants our federal government broad sweeping powers to investigate not only terrorism, but all crimes. We are now poised to consider legislation that may jeopardize the civil liberties that we hold dear. Today we are forced by the White House and a few people in the House and Senate to circumvent a process that produced legislation that could truly be called bipartisan. The Republicans and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee joined together to create a measure that received the unanimous support of the Committee. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their good work. The White House and the Republican leadership of the House, however, hijacked the Committee's work--forcing us to vote on this one hundred and eighty page bill with only a few short hours to review it. There are thorny issues in the measure before us. The House Judiciary Committee's counter-terrorism bill included a provision that sunsets these extraordinary increases in Government power in two years, ensuring that the House would be forced to review these measures at that time. This compromise was reached despite the fact that the White House and the Justice Department wanted the measure to be enacted for an indefinite amount of time. The bill before us today, however, allows the measure to be revisited in three years. At that time, however, it is within the sole discretion of the President to decide whether or not to extend these measures for another two years. This is dangerous. This measure gives this administration nearly unbridled power to pursue terrorism and other crime. Yes, we need to address the ability of government to pursue terrorists. However, Congress should be able to change this measure if the current terrorist threat subsides. Congress should be the body revisiting this measure in two or three years. Congress should not delegate its constitutional duty to oversee the activity of the Executive Branch. While I firmly support added measures to fight terrorism, we should not move in the direction of past mistakes. Fortunately we successfully removed provisions giving the administration the ability to detain suspect non-citizens for indefinite amounts of time. Unlimited detention is unacceptable. There must be thorough judicial review in a specified period of time. We must not repeat the mistakes of our past. We must not revert to the age of McCarthyism when accusation and innuendo operated with the force of law. I am concerned that those who support today's process and the measure before us today have not learned the lessons of history well enough. I understand that the events of September 11 have necessitated heightened measures to ensure the security of our citizens. However, I hope these heightened measures do not distort our records on the issue of civil liberties. I am particularly concerned about those who suggest that our current situation justifies the practice of racial profiling or search and seizure procedures without clear standards that are subject to thorough review of our nation's judges. As an African American, I know all too well the ills of racial profiling. The President has proclaimed that our war on terrorism is not a war on Islam. He has proclaimed that our nation takes pride in its diversity, which is strengthened by our brothers and sisters of the Islamic faith. I suggest that if our policy is to focus our heightened investigative efforts solely on those who look Middle Eastern, or foreign, then we dishonor the President's noble proclamations. In this time of need we should focus our attention on all potential terrorists, including those who attack this country in the name of Christianity. Our outcry and efforts against foreign terrorism should be just as zealous against domestic terrorism. Our outcry against the Osama bin Ladens of the world should be just as strong against the Timothy McVeighs. Both seek to use terror and confusion to accomplish their warped political goals. By a truly comprehensive and objective attack on terrorism we lend credibility to our current war on terrorism and shine forth the light of freedom from our nation's shores. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I oppose the measure before us today. In our justified haste to catch those who perpetrated the events of September 11 and who pose a continued threat to our nation, we must not abort the ideals that have made our nation strong. In the face of this crisis we must not rend our civil liberties and thus our Constitution, lest we be prepared to cede victory to the terrorists.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to District business which required my attention, I am unable to be present for final passage of H.R. 2646, The Farm Security Act, rollcall No. 371. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, by bringing this bill up without extensive debate or scrutiny and without the opportunity for amendment, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I want to assist the airline industry. The condition of the industry was marginal before September 11. Since the assault on America, we now find it in a critical state. In helping the airlines, we are protecting airline industry executives, managers and stockholders. I am not opposed to that if that is what it takes to rebuild the air transport system. But in the wake of trying to pull together a bill that will bridge the industry until some normalization in the system is restored, we are forgetting about the rank and file employees. These are the baggage handlers, the skycaps, the flight attendants, and the ticket agents who are the victims of last week's shutdown and who now find themselves out on the street. There is no provision in this bill that will help bridge them and their families until the air transport system is back on its feet. The leadership has promised to bring up legislation next week to provide compensation for workers, families and victims adversely impacted by this tragic incident. My problem with this ``promise'' is that it does not have the united commitment of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. That's why I am skeptical of supporting this bill on these terms, under these conditions. More often than not, legislating quickly is legislating badly. Many Members in this chamber have cited the precedents of the Chrysler and New York City loan guarantees. Although I was not a Member of Congress when Congress acted on these proposals, I supported their passage and encouraged my representative in Congress to vote for their approval. The difference between those financial assistance packages and the one that is before us today is that the Chrysler and New York City relief bills were debated at length in committee, in private negotiations with the White House and industry executives, and on the floor of the House and the Senate. The legislative process worked deliberately and ultimately wisely. Chrysler and New York City repaid their federal loans and the federal government actually earned a profit in the process. But this case is different. We are being asked to pass a $15 billion assistance package to rescue the industry. According to one source, the $5 billion in direct aid is more than four times the amount of the actual losses actually experienced by the airline industry. I am not here to argue about the size of the package, although it does lead one to ask if we are buying a pig in a poke. The problem is that it is a halfway measure. The bill provides no lifeline to the tens of thousands of workers who have just been laid off and to the low- and tip-wage workers who were regulated out of their jobs for reasons of increased air security. I am prepared to rescue the airline and airport executives, stockholders and managers. But I am not prepared to forget those who lost their jobs under these extraordinary circumstances. We all have a large stake in rebuilding and rescuing the air transport system. Mr. Oberstar has done a great job to move this bill forward, and I have enormous respect for his leadership and knowledge of and competency in the airline industry. However, I regret that I have to vote against this bill because it ignores the very people who make the system work.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official functions scheduled in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I am unable to return to Washington; therefore I respectfully request a leave of absence from business for Friday, September 14. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2888, the bill providing emergency supplemental appropriations, Rollcall No. 341.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, this week my emotions have run the gamut. On the one hand I have seen my son take a step closer to becoming the youngest mayor in the history of Detroit. Yet, my joy has been destroyed by the hands that inflicted the worst attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor. I share the pain of Tuesday's attack with millions of Americans who have witnessed the subsequent carnage. My emotions cry out for retribution; yet my head tells me that while we must be resolute, we must also be deliberate and circumspect. For now, as a nation, we stand at the edge of the abyss. We are poised to make the leap that our nation has rarely been called on to make; yet when called to do so, we have leaped with everything that we have. We are poised today to leap into the abyss of war and we cannot do so timidly. Our determination to triumph over terrorism must be resolute and undeterred. It is with a heavy heart that I stand before the American people prepared to tip my hand in favor of using military force. War intrinsically means the loss of lives. And I know that, in addition to the blood that has already been shed, our actions today will sanction further bloodshed of our sons and daughters. However, there are times when circumstance leaves us no choice. Tuesday's attack has left no doubt that our enemies seek to bring America under siege. We have no choice but to protect ourselves, and I have no choice but to support this joint resolution authorizing the President to respond militarily against our enemies.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, America is a diverse nation. Despite our diversity, America, in times of crisis, pulls together. Nowhere is that fact made manifest than in this chamber today. Republicans, Democrats and Independents all gather here today to begin the first steps in pulling our nation out from under the rubble that befell New York and the Pentagon on Tuesday, September 11. I want to commend our leadership for working cooperatively and effectively with the Speaker of the House and the leaders on the other side of the Capitol. The supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 2888, that we consider today is a down payment for responding to the attack we experienced on American soil three days ago. The money contained in this bill will help restore downtown Manhattan to greater glory and reconstruct the largest office building in the world, the Pentagon. But the money will be used for more than just the rebuilding effort; it will be used to strengthen and make more secure the National Airspace System. Americans must feel safe in the nation's skies if the business of this country is going to proceed unimpeded. This bill will add more capability to the intelligence functions of our government, so we can be more vigilant of those who pose a threat to the safety and security of our nation. More fundamentally, this bill will assist us in our pursuit of those countries, organizations or individual enemies that would seek to destroy our country, our countrymen, our values, our democratic form of government and, in short, our very soul as a nation. I congratulate the leadership of this House and leadership of the Appropriations Committee for acting swiftly in bringing this money bill for action today, and I thank them for permitting me to express my support for this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to the shutdown of the National Air Space System, I am unable to return to Washington; therefore I respectfully request a leave of absence from business for Wednesday, September 12. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 61, the resolution condemning terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, Rollcall No. 338.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I express my shock and outrage at the attacks that took place yesterday. First and foremost I send out my prayers and condolences to the thousands of American families most directly affected by this tragic event and the millions of Americans who feel the devastation of such a profound strike at the heart of our Nation. While our pain is immense our actions will be resolute. We will not stand idly by while those who seek to destroy our democracy wreak havoc on our country and the rest of the world. I say to those who have perpetrated this attack: witness the American resolve evident in the immediate aftermath of these horrendous attacks as our Nation's citizens band together to help one another in time of need; witness the increased sense of American unity, tradition, pride and patriotism your actions invigorate in the American conscious; witness the undying sense of hope and determination evidenced by the American people. I say that your attack runs counter to your goals, whatever they may be. You have only increased our determination to spread the American spirit and our belief in freedom and justice to the far corners of the world. You have only strengthened our condemnation of undemocratic institutions, and you have resigned yourself to the retribution that your evil acts warrant. God bless America and God help the families and victims of yesterdays' attack.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in my District, I was unable to record my vote on H.R. 1766, (rollcall No. 336) and H.R. 1761, (rollcall No. 337). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both measures.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of Representative Ganske's Bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights and to oppose the amendment substitute being offered. When we started this debate several years ago, we were trying to find a way to protect patients and help them to receive access to quality health care. Somehow we have strayed from our original purpose and have started trying to protect HMO's. There is something wrong with this picture. The people of this country want security in knowing that the health care they receive is based on sound practice, not on an employer's or health care plan's bottom line. The people of this country deserve to have this assurance. I question whether or not those who oppose the Ganske bill would want for their families to face what so many of our constituents face everyday--uphill battles against HMO's in an attempt to receive the treatment their doctor has prescribed for them. Several of my colleagues plan to offer amendments to the Ganske bill that will remove the very essence of the Patients' Bill of Rights. The amendments they plan to propose are being touted as ones that will make this a true compromise bill. It is not compromise in my eyes. If these amendments pass, the name of the bill will remain the same, but the substance of the bill will be worthless. There are three ``poison pill amendments.'' The amendments being offered on the floor today will cost the American people millions of dollars. The underlying bill, as introduced by Representative Ganske, includes ways to pay for the costs of this bill. The alternative plan does not pay for these costs. We are talking about costs that total over $20 million. Where is this money going to come from? Shall we just continue drawing down on the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds? The amendments being offered to this bill will also supersede the rights of the states. Thirty nine states, including Michigan, already have their own tort laws that work and work well. Under the alternative being offered, federal law will prevail. It will even preempt state remedies previously provided by the Supreme Court. In states that have no damage caps, they would be forced to accept the damage limitations provided by the alternative. Under Representative Ganske's bill, individuals have the right to have their case reviewed by an external review board. This makes sense. However, the alternative plan makes it almost impossible for a patient to prove his or her case in court. A patient must demonstrate the decision of the external review entity was completely unreasonable. It would not matter if the external reviewers were not familiar with the latest medical evidence, or if the reviewers did not consider all the facts of the patient's case. This review process is a medical one. It is vital that a patient have access to this review process, but it does not provide the due process protections that a court does. Patients should have access to the courts. To do otherwise is just one more attempt to protect HMO's and insurers at the expense of patients. I ask my colleagues to carefully consider the amendments and the final bill that we are being asked to vote on today. Vote against the ``poison pill amendments'' and support a true Patients' Bill of Rights. Make HMO's accountable for their actions, just as we hold doctors and hospitals accountable. Vote yes for Representative Ganske's bill, a bill that will protect patients, not HMO's and the insurance industry.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts. Both sides of the debate cite the recent report on the effectiveness of CAFE Standards by the National Academy of Sciences. Supporters of the amendment argue that the technology currently exists to raise the combined fleet passenger vehicle and light truck standard from 20.7 miles per gallon to 26 by 2004. But the Boehlert-Markey amendment doesn't stop there, it puts on an additional requirement that the combined fleet standard must be raised to 27.5 by the following year. The problem is that U.S. auto manufacturers, especially in the light truck lines, have established their production lines for the next five model years. Changing CAFE standards will cause severe disruptions in the plant configuration for production line models over the next five years. This will force automakers to shut down certain lines, close plants, lay off workers and harm auto manufacturing communities. The effect of this amendment is that General Motors and Ford will have to close over 20 plants in order to comply with the new standard. This action would result in the loss of 100,000 auto worker jobs. Daimler-Chrysler says it would have to close two of its truck plants and would no longer be able to produce the Durango, the Dakota or Ram pickup truck lines. That would cost 35,000 Daimler-Chrysler workers their jobs. These are job losses that would result by model year 2004. More job losses would follow when the CAFE standard would be increased to 27.5 mpg by model year 2005. The jobs of these auto workers and the economic health of auto-making communities is too important for us to ignore. Yes, we want more fuel efficient automobiles, minivans, pickups and SUVs. But as the National Academy of Sciences reported, automakers need sufficient lead time--10 to 15 years--to phase in fuel saving improvements. H.R. 4 specifically instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a new standard for light trucks based on maximum feasible technology levels and other criteria in addition to reducing gas consumption by 5 billion gallons by year 2010. The fuel efficiency standard in H.R. 4 is a floor, not a ceiling. The economy is too anemic and basic industry in America--especially the auto industry--is too fragile to sustain a production change requirement of this magnitude. This economy cannot afford to lose more than 100,000 auto industry jobs. President Bush is fond of saying, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well, I'm from Michigan--Detroit City, the motor capital of the world--and I say, ``Don't mess with Michigan; don't mess with auto-making centers such as Detroit, and don't mess with auto workers and their families.'' Vote against the Boehlert- Markey Amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2505 offered by Mr. Weldon and in support of the alternative bill offered by Mr. Greenwood. We must not ban vital research and treatment for millions of suffering people. H.R. 2505 will severely limit the advancement of medical discovery and vital research. There are strong feelings on both sides of this argument. Understandably, those on the other side are driven by what they describe as the degradation of human life that cloning proposes. I do not think that there is a member in this House who does not shudder at the shear awesome scope of this research. On the one hand, we fear a world where human beings are created in a lab for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs, characteristics and other items for the benefit of other human beings. On the other hand, we fear foregoing a cure for many of the horrible afflictions that face man like diabetes, cancer, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's Disease. I do know that God has blessed us with the knowledge and the skill to do more than just ponder a cure for these afflictions. My concern is that with such a ban in place, as envisioned in this bill, there will be no opportunity to learn all that God might have us learn. All because we acted too quickly to ban research before there was a chance to truly ponder the ways to manage and control this research. For example, if the above research at some point allows us to create an embryo, a cell, a stem cell or any other viable alternative genetic material without the use of human genetic material will this provision prevent its use? Is that human cloning or creating life? I truly believe that prior to an outright ban of this research, Congress needs to make further efforts to educate every Member of this body. The knowledge that has been provided to us through this research is tremendous. We should do everything we can to understand it and manage its use. We should not, however, ban its use without careful circumspection.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was not here to cast my vote on Roll Call Vote No. 289, Representative Menendez's amendment to H.R. 2620, last Friday. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on this amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the tragedy in this whole HUD bill is that it is underfunded. I rise to support the amendment to keep the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program in operation. Last night we discussed until 11 o'clock that there is $640 million cut out of the Section 8 Program. There is $240 million cut out of the Community Development Block Program. There is $445 million cut out now, in this budget, out of the Housing Modernization Program. There is $97 million less this year in the Homeless Assistance Program, and now we come to the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which has not been cut back but eliminated. This program was started and signed into law in 1988 by President Reagan. President Bush won and continued the program. President Clinton increased the program, and last year it had a $310 million appropriation. This budget gives it zero. So not only have we reduced those other categories of housing needed, one of the most-needed categories behind education and health in our country, moderate safe, clean housing does not exist for many Americans, and what this Republican Congress does, it has decimated that in this HUD budget even more. What my colleagues need to also know is that last week this Congress passed a bill that gave $675 million to Colombia. Last year, this Congress gave $1.3 billion to Colombia, where it is documented that 90 percent of the cocaine and heroin comes from. So I say to my colleagues, this drug elimination for public housing program, which does work well; and, the chairman ask for a study, do not zero it out. It is doing marvelous things. It is hiring people who live in public housing to take care, to guide, and to monitor their own living conditions so that the children can be safe, so that the seniors can have opportunity. On the one hand, we can give Colombia $2 billion and cannot find $175 million for those who live in public housing to try to eradicate drugs, keep drugs down, and keep their housing safe. Something is wrong with that equation. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing the amendment. Our offices have worked closely on this. This is not the time to cut public housing funds. Perhaps we should send the money to Colombia so we can stop the interdiction, but, quite certainly, we also ought to have treatment on demand, which none of these budgets address. Quite certainly, we ought to have a minimum of $175 million for people who live in public housing, again, not to eliminate the program. We need to ask for the testimony. We have testimonies to tell the gentleman that it works, and the study will prove that, too. It works. Mr. Chairman, $2 billion to Colombia, and we cannot give $175 million to public housing who want to help themselves, to do what it takes to live in clean and safe housing. I think we can do better than that as a Congress. We are a much better Nation than that. All of us do not agree with the Andean Colombia program, but we do support eradicating drugs in our society. The way we do that is to stop the flow, yes, and also treatment on demand. When somebody who is addicted, whose life is in chaos finally gets ready for treatment and goes to a center in my district, they say, okay, fine, we are glad you are here. Come back in 3 months, and we will find a slot for you. Come on. That is not how it works, America. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they have it in their districts, and I have it in mine. It is an American problem. We cannot give Colombia $2 billion on the one hand and not give a few million for the American citizens who Colombia has strung out. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we adopt this amendment. It is important that we talk about what is really happening here. The HOME Program is a marvelous program. We want the Downpayment Program as well. The most important thing a person can do, a family can have, is a home. The stability, the consciousness, the being somebody really is defined in America by their home and their home conditions and how they live. So I hope the Congress will think deeply about this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is $175 million, on top of all of the cuts I already mentioned in Section 8, community development block grants, housing modernization and homeless assistance. We are going in the wrong direction. Vote ``yes'' on the Kaptur amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, due to official business in my District, I respectfully request a leave of absence for part of the day today, Tuesday, July 24, 2001. As a result of my absence, I missed recorded votes earlier today. Had I been present to vote I would have voted as follows on the following amendments to H.R. 2506, the fiscal year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill: ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 260, the Visclosky amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 261, the Paul amendment; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 262, the Lee amendment; and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 263, the McGovern amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my District, I was unavoidably detained on Monday, July 23, 2001. Had I been present to vote on H.R. 2137 (Rollcall No. 257), the Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act, H.R. 1892 (Rollcall No. 258), the Family Sponsor Immigration Act and S. 458 (Rollcall No. 259), the James C. Corman Federal Building suspension bill, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three bills.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank our new chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for his tenacity and his bipartisanship as we put together a very good bill. I thank the gentleman from Arizona very much for his leadership and to our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for her hard work as we worked together to craft a bill that is a good one and is also bipartisan. In the development assistance account, this bill does address the problems; and the rule that we have before us today helps to implement the bill that comes forward. In the child disease account and health account, we find that we have $1.4 billion there to begin to help with some of the diseases in the world. I wish there could have been more money for the diseases, and I am hopeful that we will work to find more money as we move into this process. Airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and others need more attention; and I would hope that as we move forward, we will be able to address more dollars into those accounts. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Last year, this initiative was called Plan Colombia. We put in $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia. Today, less than 25 percent of that has been spent. We hope that because 90 percent of the cocaine and heroin that comes into our country comes from Colombia that we would begin to spend this money for interdiction of these drugs and to begin to meet the drug crisis here in America. Unfortunately, it has not begun. I would hope that our committee would call a hearing and that we would hear how that $1.3 billion is going to be spent. This bill gives an additional $600 plus million for that same counter initiative of drug control. I am hopeful again that we are able to spend this money for the interdiction of drugs which is a cancer in America. Drug treatment is a must. We must put more money into drug treatment. I do not think yet our country has gotten that. Yes, you must cut off the supply through interdiction, but you also must put money in treatment, treatment on demand. I know we will see a few amendments here that speak to some of that. We have not yet addressed that in this entire budget and certainly not in this Foreign Operations budget. But overall it is a good budget, and it is a good bill. I do have some concerns about those things that I have mentioned. I will work with the chairman and our ranking member as we go forward to increase funding for HIV/AIDS and increase funding for the attack on the cancer, drugs, in our community. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule/bill and thank the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee Mr. Kolbe who has worked extremely hard to try and craft a bipartisan bill in spite of extremely limited resources and wide and varying demands by both sides. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Ranking Member Mrs. Lowey, who has worked hard and successfully ensured that she was prepared and engaged on the many issues facing her in her new leadership role on this side of the isle. development aid This bill is a decent bill that attempts to address the increasing demands on foreign assistance. I am pleased that this measure provides $2.5 Billion in Development Aid which includes $120 million for UNICEF. I am pleased that the amount that we have funded is nearly $200 million more than the President requested for Development Aid (both Development Assistance and Children Survival and Disease Programs.) development assistance account Although the bill provides less than the President's request in the Development Assistance account, it does provide $1.1 Billion--$76 million more than the current level of funding. In the Development Assistance account I have fought to ensure funding for programs like Education for Development and Democracy Initiative (EDDI) which is an African-led development program--with special emphasis on girls and women--concentrating on improving the quality of education and access to it. child survival and disease programs We have funded the Child Survival and Disease Fund at $1.4 Billion. This amount is $169 million more than the current level and nearly $400 million more than the President's request. Here, I have fought hard to fund programs like Hopeworldwide's Siyawela (which means ``We are Crossing Over'' in Swahili) program in South Africa which through support groups provides children affected by AIDS, infected by AIDS and orphaned by AIDS with counseling, medical care, psychosocial support, basic education, nutritional support and recreational activities. Do not be mistaken--I have criticisms of the Foreign Assistance measure as well. First there is the issues of HIV/AIDS. It is clear that this measure does not go far enough to address this global pandemic that is devastating large portions of the world's population. Today between 34 and 40 million people are HIV positive, with over 18,000 new infections daily. More than 95% of these infections occur in developing countries. At this rate, by the end of the present decade, nearly as many will have died from AIDS as soldiers were killed in all the wars of the 20th century. It is predicted that nearly 100 million people will be infected with the disease by 2005. In the face of this pandemic our measure provides $474 million for AIDS prevention and Control which is $159 million more than currently provided and $45 million more than the President's request. While I commend the Committee for providing additional funding it is not nearly enough to address this global scourge. Estimates of the amounts needed to address this issue range in excess of $7 to $10 Billion dollars. Surely the richest country in the world could provide further funding and set an example for the rest of the world to follow. andean counter drug initiative In my humble opinion, the money we provide for military assistance to many countries could go a long way to addressing the problems of HIV/ AIDS. This bill provides $676 million for Andean Counterdrug Initiative, the newest incantation of the former Plan Colombia. This amount is provided on top of the $1.3 billion we provided in last years bill. At best, this funding represents a botched attempt to interdict drugs in a way that has been highly immeasurable and adversely affects the people of the Andrean region. In Colombia where this initiative began, there are widespread outcry's for an end to the military assistance. There are reports of human rights abuses by all warring factions. The Colombian military and the paramilitary are accused of colluding to the detriment of the Colombian people. The rebel groups are also criticized for kidnapping and conscripting the children of this region. I don't think we know who is doing what in Colombia, but we do know that the flow of drugs across our borders has not been significantly reduced. We know that all parties involved potentially profit from our war on drugs. Fumigation Then there is the insistence by our country on a policy of Aerial eradication also known as fumigation. Aerial eradication of coca without sufficient alternatives simply moves the problem from one place to the next. Efforts in Bolivia and Peru shifted the focus of production to Colombia. According to the UN Drug Control Programme's 2000 report, coca cultivation in Peru declined 82,201 hectares between 1990-2000 and increased by 82,500 hectares in Colombia in the same period. Eradication without alternative development moved production from Colombia's Guaviare province to Putumayo province; now it is moving to Narino province and Ecuador. Since massive fumigation efforts were launched in December, there has been no change in the US price of cocaine (according to DEA 5/23/01). What is perhaps the most troubling is that there are complaints of illness and environmental degradation resulting from the fumigation policy our country is promoting. As long as US users crave drugs, greedy drug lords will find new territory to produce their product. As long as there is crushing poverty in the region, there will be a supply of poor farmers to grow coca and poppy. Sending guns to Colombia cannot solve the problems of hunger in Latin America and addiction in the US. The roots of Andean problems are social and economic as are the roots of many of the problems in this country and the rest of the world. This bill is a good bill, but by far it is not the best. It could go a lot further in addressing the social and economic concerns that fuel many of the world's problems.