Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, district business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 8, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 4609, the Rathdrum Prarie/Spokane Valley Aquifer Study Act (rollcall No. 283); and H.R. 2643, the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act (rollcall No. 284).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I express my opposition to this sham Republican bill that is harmful to women all over America. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of providing a meaningful prescription drug benefit for seniors in our nation. We have paid lip service for too long and now is the time for Members of Congress to deliver good on our word. However, while we need to enact a prescription drug coverage under Medicare, we cannot afford to enact a benefit that is anything less than what seniors deserve--a meaningful benefit that is voluntary and universal and will provide seniors with affordable prescription drugs. The plan that Republicans plan to offer does not meet these important goals. Most importantly, the proposed Republican plan does not provide seniors with the promise of guaranteed universal coverage. What does this mean? The Republican plan relies on private insurance plans or Medicare HMOs to offer prescription drug coverage to seniors and offers no concrete or strict guidelines for benefits. Simply put, Republicans have put the industry's interests above those of seniors. Seniors will be given no guarantee of meaningful drug coverage and will be at the mercy of the private industry. Seniors have worked too hard and contributed too much to this nation for us to give them anything but the best we can. And, Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan is definitely not the best we can do--it is far from it. Democrats are committed to providing a universal, comprehensive drug benefit through Medicare for all seniors. We also are committed to addressing the high cost of prescription drugs that have skyrocketed out of control. It is time for Congress to deliver on our promise and provide seniors with a true prescription drug benefit. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 24, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 3937, to revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in California (rollcall No. 249); H.R. 3786, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act (rollcall No. 250); H.R. 3971, Providing for an investigation of Forest Service firefighter deaths that are caused by wildlife entrapment or burnover (rollcall No. 251); and H.J. Res. 95, Designating the official flag of the Medal of Honor and providing for presentation of that flag to each recipient to the medal of honor (rollcall No. 252).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Bush for finally deciding to follow the lead of the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC Foundation in championing the cause of increased opportunities for home ownership for minorities. While I am pleased that the White House has finally recognized the importance of this issue to the economic welfare of minorities, it is important to recognize the leadership of the CBC in advancing this issue. Owning a home is one of the very important markers of success in a person's life. From our Nation's earliest days, homeownership has been the foundation of the American dream. Yet, for too long, the American dream has been unattainable for many low-income, minority families. In many distressed neighborhoods, particularly in this country's urban communities, there is a lack of affordable housing units available to residents. And the costs involved in new construction of residential property in these areas far outweigh the revenue. Thus, homebuilders refrain from building new, affordable homes in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. A David Broder article in the Detroit Free Press stated that ``the shortage of affordable housing is close to the top of people's concerns. And it's mainly in the Federal Government that housing is a chronically neglected subject.'' Time and again CBC Members have pointed out that Congress is not addressing the affordable housing needs of America's low to moderate- income families. We are pleased that the President is heeding our collective voices. To the President, we say, ``thank you'' for bringing about greater public awareness to this problem. To the American people, we say, the CBC will be here, as we always have, to ensure that the initiatives the President proposed this past weekend are implemented and that homeownership opportunities increase for all Americans, especially those who so desperately need them. Through the work of the President, this Congress, and the private sector, we look forward to lower down payments, better education on the purchasing process, and overall affordable housing for all Americans, regardless of race, creed, or socio-economic status.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out in support of celebrating the 30th anniversary of the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. As we all know, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions from receiving federal funds. Title IX has been a crucial part of setting a standard of equal educational opportunity in this country. Title IX aids in the disintegration of inequitable admissions policies, increases opportunities for women in nontraditional fields of study such as math and science, improves vocational education opportunities for women, reduces discrimination against pregnant students and teen mothers, protects female students from sexual harassment in our schools, and increases athletic opportunities for girls and women and has heightened the world's awareness of the importance of women's sports. Even though this 30-year-old legislation has done so much good in this country, it is again under fire as a result of a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Education alleging that it is to blame for the elimination of some men's minor sports. The Department of Justice, fortunately, is seeking dismissal of the suit, but this case has revived discussions about gender equity and the impact of Title IX. I stand today with my colleagues to reaffirm the necessity of Title IX and to celebrate its success over the past 30 years. May Title IX remain a reminder to us that our legislative system is created to protect the inherent and equal rights of all of our country's citizens, regardless of race, gender, or creed.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to congratulate the Detroit Red Wings for winning the Stanley Cup 2002 award for the year. We congratulate the Red Wings, Mike Illitch and the entire Illitch family; Scotty Bowman, Steve Yzerman, and the entire team for giving our fans across Michigan and across this country a whirlwind tour as we won another Stanley Cup playoff. I want to say to the Illitch family, ``We thank you for your dedication to the Red Wings, to the city, and to the region from which we come. Continue that Illitch spirit as we rebuild our region together and our city.'' To Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in American hockey, ``We congratulate you and wish you well in your retirement as you move on; and to Mrs. Bowman, who has been a stalwart fan of yours and our Detroit Red Wings.'' And to Steve Yzerman and the team for all the hard work, the gut playing, the tenacity, ``You really made us all feel proud.'' On behalf of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, mayor of the City of Detroit, and all the residents of the city, as well as all the residents of the region and Michigan, we say, ``Go Detroit Red Wings. We are so very proud of you.'' Let us use that same spirit to bring our city, our region, and our State together. We have awesome responsibilities ahead of us, and we believe with that Red Wing spirit, with Mayor Kilpatrick's leadership, we can pull our city together, build new economic development, a wonderful regional transportation system, offer hope for our children and security for our seniors. Go Red Wings. We are so very proud of you, and may you continue to be the spirit of our city.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, due to official business in my District, I was unable to record my votes scheduled for June 17, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: On Approving the Journal (rollcall No. 230); H. Con. Res. 415, Recognizing National Homeownership Month (rollcall No. 231); and H. Con. Res. 340, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Meningitis Awareness Month (rollcall No. 232).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4019. I am not against repealing the marriage tax, but I am strongly opposed to H.R. 4019 for two reasons: the funding source of the bill and the timing of its floor consideration. First and foremost, the surplus that was promised to the American people last year by President bush is gone, only to be substituted by the serious and foreseeable signs of a budget deficit in the near future. Currently, there is an estimated budget deficit of about $200 billion--a drastic change from the surplus that was promised last year. Consequently, the safety net that was to guarantee Social Security and Medicare funding for our baby boomers in the next decade is becoming more of a wavering hope, instead of a secured promise. The estimated revenue cost of H.R. 4019 will be over $25 billion per year after 2011, essentially, costing over $330 billion in the next decade. Coupled with the approximate $200 billion budget deficit this year, the future saving for our Social Security is looking dim. Repealing the marriage tax is a good gesture, but it definitely should not supersede the future of Social Security for our baby boomers. Second, the timing of the floor consideration for this tax penalty is unreasonable and unnecessary considering that none of the marriage penalty tax breaks will fully phase-in until 2011. Why are we considering such an issue that will cost so much in the future but has no affect on Americans today, tomorrow or four years from now? We are not sure of what the fiscal situation of the federal government will be in the next decade, but we are cognizant of the responsibilities we have towards the American people and their retirement benefits. This is true fiscal irresponsibility to bring this bill to the floor today and reeks of election year policy-making for Republican back patting. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the passage of H.R. 4019. I am in favor of the Democratic substitute, which is offered by my esteemed colleague, Rep. Matsui. The substitute offers a permanent repeal of the marriage tax. However, the repeal will be initiated in 2011 only if there will be another source of funding besides the Social Security surplus. That essentially means that we should be out of budget deficit before the marriage tax is repealed. The substitute and H.R. 4019 are very similar in that they both repeal the marriage tax in 2011. The only difference is that the substitute takes into consideration the baby boomers that will be in need of Social Security and Medicare in the next decade. Those individuals should not lose out on their benefits because of a political gesture by the House leadership during the election year of 2002. This is not just fiscal irresponsibility; it is fiscal insincerity as we have told baby boomers that they will have their retirement needs met when the time arrives. Democrats are committed to keeping our word to the American people, so I cannot vote on a bill that will void the promise of surplus for these working Americans. Therefore, I am opposed to H.R. 4019 and in favor of the substitute.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2143, which would permanently repeal the estate tax in FY 2011. The bill, if passed, will prove to be fiscally irresponsible in the short-and long- term. In reference to the short-term irresponsibility, the bill would immediately bring more wealth to the wealthy. This particular tax is one of the only ways for the Federal Government to tax on accumulated wealth. Each year, it raises a large sum of money for the government without affecting 98 percent of its citizens--only the wealthiest 2 percent are taxed. By eliminating the estate tax, we not only fill the pockets of the wealthy, but we take away the portion of federal revenue that readily assists the government in funding other efforts, such as the war on terrorism, education, Social Security, and Medicare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that we need to immediately help the small businesses and farmers sustain their livelihoods by eliminating the estate tax. Well, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the majority's belief, the repeal of the estate tax is not needed to protect the small businesses and farms. A Treasury Department study found that estates, which comprised of small businesses or farms, paid less than 1 percent of estate taxes in total. Additionally, the estate tax currently offers breaks for estates with small businesses and farms. Modifying the estate tax can help the small number of estates that will possibly be affected by the estate tax, but repealing it would only do harm. The long-term effects of the estate tax repeal are disastrous. Permanent repeal would cost the Federal Government over $50 billion of revenue in 2012 alone. This can be a huge blow for our economy in years to come, especially considering the estimated 75 million baby boomers that are due to retire in 2011 and 2012. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be negatively affected by a repeal and working Americans will be expected to pay for it with an increased tax burden. H.R. 2143 is not a good bill for our Nation in the short-term or long-term. However, the Democratic substitute offered by my esteemed colleagues, Representative Pomeroy and Representative Thurman, is more fitting considering America's state and the future fiscal status. The substitute would increase the tax credit to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples starting immediately in January 1, 2003. By raising the tax credit level to that amount, 00.6 percent of the small businesses and farms will be exempt for the estate tax starting in January 2003. The substitute will also freeze the maximum estate tax at 50 percent, the current rate, and reinstates the 5-percent surtax for the estates that soar past a total value of $10 million. One of the most important aspects of this bill is that it will only cost $5.3 billion in 2012, a grave difference from the majority's bill. While we attempt to rectify tax burdens, we need to be on alert of the short-term and long-term consequences of our actions. To be extreme in our attempts to fix the estate tax without thinking it through intelligently can ultimately draw the blueprint for our nation's demise. I cannot be a part of that effort. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am standing in strong opposition to the passage of H.R. 2143 and in full support of the Democratic substitute.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Conference Report. The Export-Import Bank has, as its main goal, the focus of helping businesses compete in the global arena. Since its creation in 1934, the Export-Import Bank has been successful in supporting U.S. businesses by providing needed assistance that allows these businesses to expand and promote their goods in other countries. Without this assistance, many of these businesses would not see this goal realized. Furthermore, as many countries provide higher levels of export financing subsidies to their companies than the U.S., the Export-Import Bank plays a crucial role in helping to even out this imbalance for U.S. firms in the international market. The Export-Import Bank has to its credit many positive outcomes. It has not only been able to sustain vital U.S. jobs in both small and large companies, but it has also created many jobs around the country. In FY 2001 alone, the bank supported over $12.5 billion in U.S. exports to markets all over the world. Companies across the country see the benefits of working with the bank, as more than 2,000 American companies of all sizes utilize its services each year. In my home state of Michigan, the value of exports supported by the bank since October 1997 is well over $500 million. The conference report strengthens the ability of the Export-Import Bank to continue its commitment to assisting U.S. companies. The report increases the loan ceiling for the bank each year, culminating in $100 billion in FY 2006. It also contains other important provisions, including anti-dumping, antiterrorism, and human rights provisions that are important factors when considering possible transactions with other countries. The conference report also requires the Export-Import Bank to improve its technical capacity that will strengthen its ability to touch more small businesses and will facilitate the usage of the bank's services for all companies. The conference report increases the bank's small business requirement to 20 percent from its current level of 10 percent. While this represents a positive step forward, I join with my colleagues in urging a higher percentage level of support in years to come and encourage the bank to do all it can to expand its outreach effort to small businesses, specifically minority and women-owned businesses. The report also strengthens U.S. export efforts in Africa, which I strongly support. I thank my colleagues, particularly Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member LaFalce, for their hard work and commitment in putting forth a strong bill that will enhance the Export-Import Bank's ability to assist U.S. companies of all sizes as they look to expand and compete in the global market.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to voice my support for our war against terrorism here and abroad. However, I stand here today to also voice my strong concerns for our future economic outlook and the outlook for the Social Security Trust Fund. We have been talking about raising the debt limit to $750 billion that puts us back on track to deficit spending. Instead of debating an honest and clean war-time supplemental bill, we have a disingenuous rule that extends into far reaching areas that poses to raise our debt ceiling level. What is more worrisome is where this money will be coming from--the Social Security Trust Fund. In order to pay for other programs, the Republican path will force us to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. This presents a bleak outlook for the future of Social Security. The movement of funds out of the Social Security Trust Fund will have a negative impact on future beneficiaries--specifically women. Women depend disproportionately on Social Security for several key reasons. Women traditionally have been the caretakers of our families, where many leave their jobs to take care of their children or other family members. Women live longer and earn less than their male counterparts (73 cents to the dollar) and typically are more likely to work in lower-wage service-sector jobs, where retirement planning is not as common. For these reasons, a woman's earning over her lifetime will be significantly less--14 years of less earning in comparison to their male counterparts. For these reasons, women depend heavily on Social Security benefits. If we drain the Trust Fund of its resources, beneficiaries, and women in particular, will be hard hit. It is obvious that ensuring that the Social Security Trust Fund is strong for our future is essential, especially for women. This issue is of crucial importance for minority women for the reasons already mentioned, but their dependence is even greater. Women of color have a huge stake in seeing that Social Security is not burdened, as they rely even more heavily on Social Security for their retirement income than do whites of either gender or men of color. African-American women and Hispanic women tend to have even lower lifetime earnings than other cultural and gender groups, and also have long life spans on average. They tend to work in lower-wage jobs that don't offer retirement or pension plans. Moreover, they draw disproportionately on Social Security benefits for disabled workers and for families of workers who become disabled or die prematurely. About one in five African-American and Hispanic beneficiaries are under the age of 55, compared to only one in ten whites. African-American women in particularly rely greatly on these non-retirement benefits because they have a higher rate of disability than whites of either gender and they and their families often survive deceased husbands. One in five African-American married couples rely on Social Security for all of their income in retirement. For 80 percent of nonmarried elderly African-American and Hispanic women, Social Security provides over half of their income in retirement, and over half of older African-American and Hispanic widows depend on Social Security for 90 percent of their retirement income. These statistics ring loudly. The security of Social Security benefits also extends to children. 23 percent of the children who receive the survivor's benefit are African- American children. In fact, African American children are almost four times more likely to be lifted out of poverty by Social Security than are white children. This is also a children's issue. Instead of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, we need to work together to ensure that it is strengthened and not weakened. We need to ensure that each and every dollar in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on Social Security. We cannot smash the lockbox and raid it blindfolded without weighing the consequences for our future.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Member of the Committee on Appropriations, having served with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), who was very dignified as this Committee on Appropriations spent over 3 days, 14 hours on the first day, trying to bring to this House of Representatives a supplemental bill to really react and respond to our war on terrorism. Many of us, over 60 of us who sit on that committee, vowed that we would do the work necessary. We put 20 hours-plus on the bill over 3 days, and brought a bill to this floor, an emergency supplemental. I am appalled with what the Committee on Rules has done with our work. It has emasculated the committee system in this House. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has done a wonderful job, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring the bill to the floor of the House. But what we have before us is not the bill that came out of the Committee on Appropriations. It is not the bill we were told was an emergency and had to be passed right away to address the war on terrorism. What we have before us now is a bill with all kinds of amendments added onto it, and all kinds of things we cannot amend as Members of this House that do not address the emergency before us. This bill will increase the debt limit without a vote of this House. We may have to increase the debt limit, primarily because of the $1.3 trillion tax cut that was given to the wealthiest of Americans just last year at the time when the economy was slowing. The CBO has told us that we will be in deficit $2.7 trillion, so perhaps we will have to increase the debt limit, but let us vote on it. Let us debate it. Do not bury it in this emergency supplemental that we spent so much time and energy and hours on. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair, and it emasculates the committee system in this House of Representatives. The Committee on Rules has gone ahead and gone deeper into the Social Security trust fund, leaving everything to be taken care of in conference, and again, not allowing us, the elected Members of this House, to have the proper forum in which to debate it. There is no new money for education, and again, if we adopt this supplemental that the Committee on Rules has rewritten, we automatically adopt the Republican budget resolution that passed this House earlier this year. That budget resolution, if we remember, did not fortify Medicare, did not take care of Social Security, did not take care of education. If we adopt this Committee on Rules supplemental tonight, we automatically adopt that poor budget resolution that was passed a few months ago. Mr. Chairman, these are trying times for our country. We are at war. We do need to address the emergency needs of our troops, our homeland security. But we also need to address the national defense, homeland, problems of education.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for making that caveat. It was the majority, the Republican members of the Committee on Rules who emasculated the work of the fine Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and now we have before us not an emergency supplemental that deals with terrorism, but a bill that will raise the debt limits for this country, making us have more bills to pay and at the same time not having an up-or-down vote on it; nor will we be able to debate that. I think that is unconscionable. We live in a time in this country where leadership is paramount, where we must stand up and be counted. This is not the way this House should be run. This is not the way the majority should run it. I hope we will vote against the supplemental. Some people say they cannot vote against it because of what is in it. I think you can vote against it, come back and put together a supplemental for the American people that will address the emergency needs of our country. Our health care industry is about to collapse. I have been visited by doctors in this country. I am sure you have too. They are not taking Medicare senior citizen patients. The reimbursements are too low. Our children cannot stand up to the competition of people all around the world. We can fix that. This supplemental does not begin to address that. At a time when we need leadership, we are finding more and more that we are doing the wrong things for the people of this country. They expect us to be leaders. They sent us here for that. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, watch what we do over the next few hours. Vote against this supplemental. We are being asked to do something today that we have not done in almost 6 years--pass legislation that paves the way for increasing the debt limit that will allow the government to borrow money to pay its bills. The majority is attaching this on to a must-pass bill, an emergency supplemental appropriations to fund homeland security and the war on terrorism, in order to minimize its exposure as the party of fiscal irresponsibility. For more than 60 years, the other side of the aisle has billed itself as the party of balanced budgets, budget firewalls and Social Security lockboxes. But their rhetoric does not comport with reality and they know it. In the last half of the 20th century through last year, the only budget surpluses this nation enjoyed came under Democratic administrations and Democratic financial management. That's a point the Republican majority does not want to acknowledge. Consequently, it wants to slip debt-increase legislation through on the sly without a full and fair debate of the fiscal position of the country, how we got there, and how we're going to deal honestly about digging ourselves out of the hole in which we now find ourselves. The problem is the other side is in a state of denial. It does not want to expose itself as the party of deficit spending after a Democratic administration produced the longest string of budget surpluses in the history of this country. And it doesn't want to own up to the fact that it has to raise revenues before the country can get back on the right track to fiscal sanity. Yes, the economic slowdown and the war on terrorism caused us to spend more than general revenues allow. But the primary reason we are spending beyond our means is because of a $1.3 billion tax bill Congress passed last year. Because the other side doesn't want to deal with the deficit situation honestly and openly, the majority wants us to approve must- pass legislation, so it can have a license to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We need to ensure that all areas of our budget are adequately funded. While it is necessary to fund defense and national security priorities, it is not acceptable to ignore domestic priorities that are of crucial importance to our nation and the American people. By insufficiently funding key priorities such as education and prescription drugs, we are shortchanging our families and children. Yes, they might be safer on the national security front, but if we cannot ensure our nation's children a quality education, if we can't ensure seniors a sound prescription drug coverage, and if we can't ensure the solvency of our Social Security for so many people in the future, we are truly off the mark. The budget resolution presented a distorted vision for our future by laying out a budget that does not sufficiently fund our education and health care needs. This is not a budget that the appropriations committee should adhere to if we really want to keep the promises we have verbally made to our people. It is time to match our words with real funding levels on paper. Education In January, the President signed into law landmark education reform legislation with the ``Leave No Child Behind Act.'' Yet, his proposed budget and the Republican budget that was passed in the House does not make the title of this bill a reality. If we continue along the Republican funding path, more and more children will be left behind. Both budgets provide a $1.4 billion (2.8 percent) increase over FY 2002 funding levels to the Department of Education, which represents the smallest increase in funding in recent years. Not only does the budget for education represent the smallest increase in recent times, it actually eliminates funding for 28 key education programs such as Drop-Out Prevention, Rural Education, Close- Up Fellowships, and numerous other programs that enrich students' education. At the same time, the budget resolution proposes cutting or freezing many other elementary and secondary education programs, including educational technology (cut $134 million--15.7 percent), improving teacher quality programs (cut from $105 million to $3 billion total), and safe and drug-free schools (cut $102 million or 13.7 percent). It also freezes funding for 21st century community learning centers after- school programs, comprehensive school reform. Even keeping funding for programs for FY 2003 at their current level represents a cut in funding when inflation and rising costs are taken into account. If we expect schools to implement the provisions laid out in the ``Leave No Child Behind Act'', then we must give them the funding resources needed to help them succeed. Mandates without adequate funding is leaving our schools and teachers with their hands tied. In my state of Michigan, funding for educational priorities such as school construction and class size reduction have been eliminated. Other programs have been cut, such as Even Start which provides grants for family literacy projects that include early childhood education for children through age 7. health The Republican budget proposed a mere $350 billion for Medicare reform and prescription drug coverage over ten years. This represents a gross underfunding just for a prescription drug coverage, which would cost $700-800 billion over 10 years alone if we want a comprehensive, meaningful drug coverage plan for seniors and disabled individuals. This funding level does not even account for what will be needed to strengthen Medicare for our future. If Republicans, in their maneuvering today, really expect us to stick with the funding levels proposed in the budget resolution, then their actions on the floor definitely contrast with the verbal promises that they offer seniors everyday on the floor and in their districts. Overall, the health care outlook in the GOP budget is bleak. If we are asked to stick with their numbers, major programs will be cut, such as rural health programs (41.9 percent cut), Telehealth (84.6 percent cut), and other programs that assist in coordinating care for the uninsured. social security and medicare raids The huge tax breaks for the wealthy that Republicans passed have left us looking at deficit spending. And where will the funds for all our programs come from? Social Security and Medicare trust funds. This is what they have to resort to when just last year, Members pledged not to raid Social Security and we passed Social Security lockbox legislation on the floor. This promise has been broken and the lockbox is locked no more. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected last January that the course of the Republican path would lead Congress to spend $845 billion of the Social Security trust fund over the next 10 years. And this in only taking into account the FY 2002 budget. This return to deficit spending and raiding of the Social Security trust fund cannot be explained by the recent recession or the war against terrorism. When taking into account the Administration's own numbers, the national debt will be $2.75 trillion higher than what was originally projected early last year before the President's FY 2002 budget proposal. When adding recessionary costs and the war, these numbers combined total $800 billion of projected debt. This means that $1.9 trillion is left that cannot be explained either the economic downturn or the war against terrorism.

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce my opposition to the underlying bill that we consider today. It is a near certainty that the substitute amendment offered by my colleague from California (Ms. Waters) will not be approved, and without the improvements contained in her amendment, there is little choice for me but to vote against this bill. Last December, I voted against this bill's passage when it was considered under suspension of rules. I did so because I objected to a provision in that bill that would have provided immunity to customs officers for personal searches at border locations, as long as the officers follow agency guidelines. That was too broad an exemption. I share the view of many in this chamber that the men and women who make up the U.S. Customs Service are good and hard working people, dedicated to performing their jobs and committed to protecting the safety of this country's borders. Nowhere is the dedication of U.S. Customs Service personnel exemplified more than at Detroit's ports of entry. Unfortunately, inspection abuses have occurred and civil rights have been violated. The grant of immunity provided in the earlier bill asked that the constitutional rights of Americans be surrendered at the border. I opposed passage of H.R. 3129 last December, and I oppose its passage today for the very same reasons. I have dedicated my entire life to the advancement of civil rights under civil law. To vote for this bill as it is presently configured would require me to suppress a deep-seated core value that I hold dear. There are times when many in this chamber put aside their personal values in order to advance causes and issues that provide for the greater good. This is not one of those times. This bill has the potential of short circuiting the civil liberties of Americans and international visitors who step on to U.S. soil from international ports. By doing so, we are compromising on the values that make up part of the American character and surrendering the protections guaranteed to us under the constitution. I cannot in good conscience surrender my convictions to protect the civil liberties of all Americans and those that come to this country. For that reason I oppose the passage of this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against H.R. 1877, the Child Sex Wiretapping Act. Let me be clear in that I do support the goals of the bill which seek to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to apprehend those who sexually exploit children. It is clear that persons who use the Internet or any other means for the sexual exploitation of children deserve to have the full force of the law brought against their activity. My concern, however, is that the measure before us sweeps too broadly and will unduly burden the legitimate rights of Americans. There are provisions of the bill that allow wiretapping where consenting adults engage in activity that, although questionable, may in fact be legal. The protection of children is of paramount importance, but in protecting children, we should not impugn the potentially legitimate rights of many of our Nation's citizens. We have already granted the Justice Department, the FBI and other police authorities unprecedented authority to wiretap in our efforts to combat the war on terrorism. I argue that wiretap authority already exists for child sexual exploitation. These same authorities also possess the power to intercept e-mail and other electronic communications. Furthermore, States already have the authority to wiretap for the crimes specified in the bill. We are living in a trying time and we should take every precaution before granting any additional power to police authorities. I fear that Congress will give away many of the freedoms we cherish. As such, Mr. Speaker, I voted against this measure.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to business in the District I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows. I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 314, Recognizing and Supporting American Veterans, H. Con. Res. 165, Support for Continued Fibroid Cancer Research and H. Con. Res. 309, Importance of Good Cervical Health & Early Detection of Cervical Cancer.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, on May 2nd, I introduced H.R. 4652, the Consumer Protection for On-line Games Act. I am one who has never been an advocate of the gaming industry. The City of Detroit has legalized gaming, and now it is a fixture in our economy. The gaming industry has broadened its exposure over on-line and wireless communications networks. People do not have to go to casinos in Las Vegas, Reno, Detroit, Atlantic City or other gaming sites to gamble. They can play games of chance over the Internet from the privacy of their own homes. According to one financial analysis, Internet gambling is a $1 billion industry and is forecasted to grow to $5 billion by 2005. There are nearly 1 million paying users of the largest network games and free sweepstakes sites which are among the most popular Internet destinations. Many of the network gaming sites originate from offshore websites, and are beyond the reach of States and local authorities, even those authorities that prohibit Internet gaming in their jurisdictions. Local and state governments devote few resources to regulate or enforce laws, against network gaming. No protections exist to ensure the integrity of the game, protection from minors seeking to patronize games, or protection from excessive financial loss. Therefore, network gaming continues with very little regulation and with very few guarantees that the games of chance or sweepstakes one finds on internet sites are above board. My bill will allow U.S. consumers to know if the games they are playing are fraudulent. It will permit U.S. consumers to participate in online games with the security of knowing they are playing from a straight deck of cards. Specifically, H.R. 4652 proposes the following: 1. Establishes the Federal Trade Commission as the agency responsible for monitoring games of chances offered on the Internet or wireless network. 2. Prohibits network game operators subject to U.S. law from making false or misleading claims regarding the fairness of such games. 3. Requires self-regulatory organizations to comply with specific minimum requirements. 4. Specifies that States must notify the FTC when it brings action against a network game provider and allows the FTC to intervene in any action brought on by the state and file petitions for appeal. I know feelings run strong on both sides of the gaming question. It is a policy area with which I have some issues. The fact exists, however, that gaming websites are available for everyone's entertainment. It is my hope that this legislation will prevent present and future abuses and reduce the incidence of fraud. America has a chance to become a leader in this emerging global industry, but we presently lag behind other countries which are dealing honestly and openly with the issue of online gaming. This bill is not perfect, but it offers a proposal for a regulatory structure that does not impose its will over the States, especially those States who want to effectively regulate network gaming operations within their borders. I hope that Congress will seriously study this proposal and raise the level of debate on this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this measure as it travels through the legislative process.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, while I support the highest standards of equipment and pay for our troops, and acknowledge that the most important function of our national government is to ensure the safety of our citizens, I could not support H.R. 4546, the FY 2003 Defense Authorization Act. The measure over militarizes American goals and policies at our economic and political expense. Our nation is great. There is no other that can compete with it-- particularly on the battlefield. This is true today, it was true yesterday and I will work to ensure that it is true tomorrow and into the future. Yet, the $383.3 billion that we authorized for Defense (which I might add, does not include the $10 billion authorization the President has requested for a terrorism contingency fund) is more than the combined defense budgets of the next closest 25 nations. Surely, we can afford other national priorities. The bill includes $7.8 billion for a National Missile Defense System that may or may not materialize. After spending more than $100 billion since its inception during the Reagan Administration, National Missile Defense tests have had little success and system requirements continue to be downgraded. Even if successful, a National Missile Defense System would have done nothing to prevent the events of 9-11. Furthermore, the Bush Administration's insistence on this system continues our move away from strategic international laws that have helped maintain nuclear stability since the Second World War. The $7.8 billion spent on a National Missile Defense System, alone, would shore up our homeland security and provide 21st century classrooms to our nation's children. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I opposed this measure and voted against it on final passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives debated key legislation on Welfare Reform Reauthorization. Unfortunately, the legislation we passed does not represent a step forward in welfare policy. Since Congress passed the 1996 Welfare Reform law, many have touted its success in reducing welfare rolls. While this is true, it paints a distorted picture on the realities of welfare. Yes, many States have seen a reduction in welfare rolls, but many of the families that are moving off welfare are moving straight into low-income, minimum wage jobs. Many still rely on federal supports, such as Medicaid and food stamps to stay afloat. Is this success? We cannot expect families to move forward unless we provide them with the essentials to succeed in life. Unfortunately, the bill that the Republicans introduced does not address or contain sound policies and provisions that will help lift individuals out of poverty and off of welfare. This should be the focus of welfare reform reauthorization--to help lift families out of poverty. If this isn't the main goal, and it is not in the Republican bill, then we are failing the system and more importantly we are failing families. We need to improve upon what we know from the 1996 Welfare Reform law and work with States to provide them with the funds and flexibility they need to help families and children not simply move off of welfare, but more importantly, move out of poverty. Greater emphasis should be placed on educational opportunities and programs--an approach that would ensure that families are able to move up the economic ladder. Without the opportunity to learn a trade or pursue post-secondary educational options, the outlook for families being able to move off of welfare and improve their economic status is bleak. Education is the key to success--we all know that. Yet, the Republican bill does not stress the importance of education. Instead of providing States with the flexibility of offering more educational programs, the provisions in the Republican bill put States in a compromising position. In order to adhere to the strict work requirement of a 70 percent participation rate by 2007 and a 40 hour work week requirement, States would need to focus more on pushing recipients into low-income or workfare type programs that offer no chance of a brighter future. This is the wrong choice for families. While the Republican bill puts forth unrealistic expectations on States and welfare recipients, it does not, at the same time, adequately increase Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding and child care funding to States to help them meet the requirements. In fact, there is no increase in TANF spending and only a $1 billion increase in mandatory child care funding over five years. Currently, many working parents on welfare are not able to find quality child care. How can we expect working mothers to work a 40 hour week if they do not have access to quality child care? Children should be our first priority, but they are not in this bill. The Republican Welfare Reform bill focuses on a one-size-fits-all policy that is concerned more with moving families off of welfare rolls than providing families with opportunities to succeed. Instead of looking at disingenuous numbers on paper, Congress needs to focus more on looking at individual families when implementing policies. If Republicans did this they would realize how unrealistic their bill truly is. It restricts States instead of providing them with more flexibility to determine what is the right approach for individual families in their State. Helping families to succeed is the Democratic approach--and the right approach. If we fail to enact policies that will give families a chance to create a better life, we fail families and we fail children. For these reasons, I vote ``no'' on H.R. 4737.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today we should be here to focus on what all sides involved in the Middle East have in common and what can be applied from our experience here in this country to achieving solutions to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We should not be here to blame one side over the other, but to seek solutions leading to the peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. The struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one of the most enduring and explosive of all the world's conflicts. For the Jewish people of Israel, the return to the land of their forefathers after centuries of persecution around the world has not brought peace or security. Israel has faced and continues to face crisis after crisis. Palestinians argue that over the last 54 years they have seen colonization, expulsion and military occupation in their difficult struggle for self-determination in a land they see as their God given land. This resolution is not balanced. At this time the Secretary of State and the Administration are working to bring peace to the Middle East. This resolution does not help this cause. This resolution damages our nation's moral authority and credibility as a fair broker in the Middle East conflict. I cannot support the resolution in its present form.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the over 260,000 women who are sexually assaulted in America every year. We just concluded sexual assault month last month as we ended the month of April. Today, May 1, I want to make sure that Americans know that sexual assault will not be tolerated. There are programs in our government, both public and private, that help sexual assault victims reach their potential if they have been horrendously assaulted. This is a better country than that. We are better people than that. There are programs both for the assaulter, as well as the woman or man who has been assaulted. It is our responsibility as families, as leaders, to work with these people who need additional assistance. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we as American citizens reach out to those people, support the programs and move this country forward.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the House passed H.R. 3763. The bill was supposed to create a sense of security for workers and victims who are in fear of another Enron disaster. It does not, and for that reason I voted ``no'' on its passage. The bill gives the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the option to establish a Public Regulatory Organization (PRO) if it felt investigations or disciplinary measures were warranted. The problem is that there is no real power with an option. The SEC needs the legislative authority to create the type of PRO we want; yet H.R. 3763 lacks the explicit language mandating its creation. Without the express language, there is no guarantee the PRO would be created. The Democratic substitute would explicitly create the Public Regulatory Organization. Additionally, the substitute would provide the PRO with the express power to supervise, oversee and discipline illegal activity. Under the substitute, the PRO could supersede the current regulations if more stringent ones were required. H.R. 3763 does nothing of the sort. It does not specify authority to a PRO, if the SEC decided to create one. Essentially, H.R. 3763 would only have the potential of creating a toothless organization with weak disciplinary authority. H.R 3763 does not live up to its promises and will not prevent a reoccurrence of future Enron-like tragedies. The bill, if made law, will do nothing of substance. I want to make sure that my constituents and all American workers are safe from disasters such as Enron. I want to make sure that the victims feel their voices are heard. This issue is of great concern to me, and I will not vote for a bill that lulls workers into a false sense of security.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 104, the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3839; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 105, on the motion offered by Mr. Dooley of California to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 106, on the motion offered by Mr. Baca of California to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking Committee on Rules member this morning for yielding me the time. Someone else asked earlier why do we not put our own plan forward. Well, we have a rule that will not give us a substitute, will not allow us a substitute, will not allow us amendments and will not allow us a motion to recommit. What kind of process is this? I rise in opposition to the rule and also the underlying bill. If we spend as much time on tax cuts, if we translate that to education and health care, our health care system that is collapsing, Medicare trust fund, our senior parents, our aunts and uncles who built this country, the world and this country would be a better place. It is a bad bill, it is a bad rule, and until we shore up Social Security for those who built this country, until we have an adequate health care system and Medicare, why do we have a tax bill with a permanent tax cut years out that really cannot bind this Congress? It is a bad rule. It is a bad rule. Let us vote the rule down, vote the bill down and continue to build America for the people who built it, the Medicare senior citizens who deserve a better health care system than we now have.