Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in support of the Conyers Substitute. First, and foremost I must make known my profound belief in the healing ability of faith. The Church has always played an important role in my life and in many ways was a catalyst to my choice to pursue a political career. However, this is not a debate about government versus religion. Religious organizations play an important role in our society and no matter what we do on the floor today they will continue to do so. I assure you I will continue to support them. Already have the ability to compete There are many who have taken the floor and allege that Faith Based organizations are discriminated against when competing for federal funds. I question this statement. I have come to believe that under current law, Faith Based organizations can in fact compete if they take certain steps under the law. They must create a separate 501(C)(3) organization to prevent the mixing of church and secular activities. In my mind this insulates Faith Based organizations from the sometimes intrusive hand of the government. Discrimination Again I state my support for the healing role of faith based organizations. However, as an avid student of this country's history and, for that matter, the world's history, I cannot ignore some of the heinous things that have been done in the name of religion. In fact, current history is full of the horrors attendant to state sponsored religion. For decades, this country has struggled to bring peace to the hot box that is the Middle East, where religion is the sub-text used for the oppression of women, the oppression of other faiths and state sponsored terrorism. While I realize that this country has many protections against many of these horrors, and I do not mean to suggest that the enactment of this bill will rise to the level of these horrors, I do mean to suggest that more subtle forms of these problems such as discrimination will result from this measure. This bill would allow Faith Based organizations to discriminate as to who they will hire. This is wrong. The faith of a helping hand is of no consequence to the person in need. All of humanity has the potential to accomplish charitable deeds and should not be told that there is no role for their charity because of the faith they hold dear. I will not stand idly by as the Civil Rights laws in place to prevent workplace discrimination are flouted in the name of religion No Additional Funding for the Program Finally, this measure is indicative of the Republican efforts to dismantle social programs. I say this because they have not provided a red cent for the implementation of this initiative or the programs that it involves. This bill will expand the pool of competitors already competing for diminished funds due to a bloated tax-cut. For example the Bush budget cuts local crime prevention funds by $1 billion. The Bush budget also cuts the needs of public housing by $1 billion by cutting $309 million from Public Housing Drug Elimination Grants, and cutting the Public Housing Capital Fund by $700 million. Even Job Training is cut by $500 million under the Administration's budget.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the tabling of Mr. Baldacci's motion to instruct the Conferees who will consider the Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act. This motion would direct the managers to accept an amendment that would give the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Title I status, even though this amendment was not included in the bill passed by the House. First, let me state that as a former school teacher, I am in full support of providing as much funding as is needed to insure that all of our children in this country receive a quality education that meets their intellectual and physical needs. I do not know of anyone in this House who is not in support of providing our children with what they need to grow and learn in an appropriate environment. This includes providing funds to assist students who are in need of special assistance due to a physical or mental disability. How could anyone not be in support of assisting these children? However, it does not make for ``good'' education policy if we single out just one program and instruct the Conferees to give it Title I status by making it an entitlement. The ESEA bill is overflowing with good and valuable programs, all of which deserve to receive the funds that were authorized for them, if not more. Therefore, I cannot support singling out just one program for entitlement status. I would hope that not only would we fully fund the programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but also the class size reduction programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, and the Homeless Education Assistance Improvement Act, as well as all of the other beneficial programs within ESEA. A program should not have to have entitlement status in order to receive full funding. I trust in the ability of my colleagues who will serve as conferees on this bill to see the importance of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The programs included in this Act will provide children who have a disability with a quality education that factors in their special needs, and is of no cost to the parents. The conferees do not need to be instructed to give Title I status to a program in order to fully fund it. If this was the case, I would be standing here before you arguing that entitlement status should be given to all of the programs included in the ESEA.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The New Detroit Science Center on its grand opening. I am pleased to say that The New Detroit Science Center will be partnering with Marshall Field's in its grand opening festivities which will be attended by Governor and Mrs. John Engler on July 28. The celebration, ``Marshall Field's Weekend of Wonder at The New Detroit Science Center--32 Hours of Exploration,'' will kick off at 10 AM on July 28 and continue around the clock until 6 PM on July 29. The Detroit Science Center was founded by Detroit businessman and philanthropist Dexter Ferry nearly 30 years ago. In 1998, plans were made to transform the Detroit Science Center into a leading center for science education. The Center broke ground on its expansion and renovation in 1999. The New Detroit Science Center will serve as a vehicle to educate our children and their families in the areas of science and technology. Detroit is known as a technological hub, and this new Center will involve our children and expose them to the resources that surround them. This Center will serve as a tremendous resource for teachers, children, and families across the State of Michigan. Its exciting programs, which include an IMAX theater, five hands-on laboratories, the DaimlerChrysler Science Stage and Sparks Theater, the Ford Learning Center, and the Digital Dome Planetarium, will create an interest in science, engineering, and technology. The New Detroit Science Center will open up a whole new world of opportunities for the children of Detroit. I am especially pleased that so many of our community members and businesses have contributed their time and funds to this project. This commitment to our children by the community is vital. I know that the benefits of bringing such a center to our children will prove to be immeasurable. I invite all of my colleagues to come and bring their families to visit Detroit's newest star, The New Detroit Science Center.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his outstanding leadership as we brought a perfect bill to this floor. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on this first time on appropriations and in the subcommittee. This is a good bill. I strongly urge its adoption and that we move forward in the process. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our entire subcommittee spent many hours working with the airline industry because we know that cancellations, as well as late flights, are a problem for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on his tenacity in making the airline industry come to the table and to address that problem. We have a safe industry here in America, and we are proud of that, but there is much work yet to be done as it relates to cancellations and timely departures and arrivals. With the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and our chairman, I am sure we will get to the bottom of that as well. The bill is a good one, as has been mentioned; not a perfect bill, but seldom do we have a perfect bill. I want to mention a little bit about the motor carrier safety that we are seeing in America. Trucks are responsible for many accidents that we have in our country. We have to make sure that we have an adequately staffed motor carrier division, and this bill begins to address that. In our NAFTA provisions that were passed a few years back, beginning January 1, as has been mentioned, many trucks coming from Canada, coming from Mexico must be inspected. Everything has to be safe and within the rules of America's transportation system. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) mentioned earlier, with NAFTA many trucks now will be coming into America further than the 30 miles, coming across into our country, and sometimes they may not meet the requirements that our country has set for our own trucks. I hope we will revisit the Sabo amendment and that we make those trucks coming in from Mexico meet the very same standards that our trucks have. Many trucks coming from Mexico do not have regular hours of service. Sometimes their inspection records are not up-to-date like ours must be. I hope we take the time in this bill to revisit that issue, to make sure that all American citizens are secure and safe as trucks move around our country. I strongly support this bill. I ask that my colleagues support it and that we move it to the Senate as soon as possible.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall number 177, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). Please let the Record show that had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836 the so-called reconciliation measure considered last week. In the House this measure was considered with little notice, without the consultation with, nor input from, the Democratic Party. This measure was crafted in the dead of the night, behind closed doors and now we are instructed to vote to send it to Conference. I say vote no on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836. This measure was reintroduced under the cover of a reconciliation bill in order to deprive the power of the minority in the Senate. The American people should ask themselves: Why couldn't the Republicans Leadership bring this bill up under normal procedures? Why did they resort to procedural tricks in order to thwart the will of the Senate minority? Then, in order to aggravate the situation, the rule passed in the House was a closed one, allowing for only one Democratic Amendment and a motion to recommit. Why was the Republican Leadership in the House afraid of an honest and open debate on this measure? It is clear that despite Republican claims to the contrary, this reconciliation-bill won't be the only tax cut bill sent to the President this year. Although the budget resolution provided for $1.35 trillion in tax cuts, the Republican wish list includes a total of $2.4 trillion in tax expenditures. Including the interest cost, the total drain on the budget surplus from these tax cuts over ten years would be nearly $3.0 trillion, more than the $2.7 trillion available in the projected surpluses outside Social Security and Medicare. This bill is essentially the same as H.R. 3, which this Chamber passed earlier in the year. I voted ``no'' then and I will vote ``no'' now. The Joint Tax Committee estimated the cost at nearly $1.0 trillion over ten years, excluding interest, with the wealthy receiving the lion's share of the benefits. According to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, 44 percent of the tax cuts would go to those in the top 1 percent, while the 60 percent of families with incomes of $44,000 or less would get a mere 16.5 percent of the tax cuts. The bill does make a portion of the new bottom 10 percent tax bracket effective in 2001. However, the bill disregards the need for immediate economic stimulus, providing only $5.6 billion in 2001. In a budget of $10 trillion, $5.6 billion is a drop in the bucket and there will be no trickle down economic stimulus resulting from this tax cut. Democrats offered an alternative tax cut that gave everyone that pays federal income or payroll taxes a tax cut, and provides approximately $60 billion immediate economic stimulus through a rebate of $300 for married couples. Our alternative was reasonable and fiscally responsible because it left money to address other problems facing our nation. Our tax cut protected Social Security and Medicare and invested in education and prescription drug coverage in Medicare for all seniors. President Bush ran on the issue of a strong defense, the price of which we have not yet seen. This budget, however, does not even consider the cost of the changes he has advocated to our defense infrastructure. While he deals in theory, our budget dealt with reality. A realistic tax cut that left enough money in the budget to ensure a strong defense. Democrats believe in tax cuts, but not at any cost. Our tax cut fixed the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that the Republican bill ignores. It creates a new 12 percent tax rate bracket and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Our alternative even gives marriage penalty relief to couples who use the standard deduction. Yet our alternative did this at a realistic cost. Our alternative cost $585 billion over ten years, with a total cost of $750 billion including interest. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican tax trick. Vote against the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, it was with great reservation that I will vote yea on final passage of H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The children of this country deserve the best education that is available, regardless of whether they attend a public or private school. I believe that there are parts of this bill that will serve these children and others that could see some improvement. I am very pleased that this bill will double the authorization level for Title I over the next five years to $17.2 billion. This increase in funding will assist our schools in closing the achievement gap for disadvantaged students, something which is of vital importance to the children living in cities such as Detroit. This increase will be targeted to improve low performing schools through the investment of additional help and resources. I am also encouraged by the fact that this bill will permit parents of children in low performing schools to use Title I funds to provide supplemental educational services such as tutoring, after-school programs and summer school. My reservations in voting for the passage of this bill stem from the fact that this bill does not include funds for new school construction. There are too many schools in this country that are falling into disrepair. Our children are crammed into overcrowded classrooms, and this bill does nothing to help resolve this problem. I am also very concerned about the provision in this bill that requires annual math and reading testing of students in grades three through eight. I agree that testing is one way to assess the abilities of a student; however, I fear that these tests will be used to undermine schools in the inner city. Low test scores may very well lead to the closing of schools, when instead we should be providing these students with additional resources. Every child should be provided with the resources that will help them to excel academically. We must provide these children and their teachers with additional assistance and opportunities. I hope that these test results will serve to show us what schools and specific students need our assistance, and will not serve only as a reason to close down much needed schools. In closing, I reiterate my support for the increase in Title I funding. The students in my district will directly benefit form these funds. I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill, and hope that in the future we will recognize the importance of funding new school construction as well.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, just briefly in closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our leader, for his excellent remarks as well. Since July 1701, when Cadillac founded the city, right through the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights movement, the auto industry which has brought to this country another whole era, right through Rosa Parks, as was mentioned, who now lives in the city of Detroit, from the United Auto Workers to the brotherhood of the Teamsters, to the mayor, Mayor Archer, who has given his notice that he will not seek reelection, we wish him the best, to our city council, Wayne State University, one of the premier universities in our region, as well as the 30 miles of international waterway that separates Detroit from the country of Canada, we say thank you to the House of Representatives for acting quickly on H. Con. Res. 80.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of the full committee for allowing us to have the full debate this afternoon, and to bring House Concurrent Resolution 80 forward. The city of Detroit was established in 1701. We will be celebrating our 300th anniversary with ceremonies in July, at which time we will have people coming forth to our city, and over 1 million residents there, honoring our great heritage. I am very thankful to the committee, its chairmanship, the ranking members, as well as my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and our senior member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), for allowing us to have this debate today. As has been mentioned, from Motown Sound to the motor cars, Detroit has been in the forefront of development for our country. We have been there for this country, and we appreciate all that the citizens of the city of Detroit have done in their own right and for the Nation as a whole. I appreciate the cooperative record of the Michigan delegation. Each member of our Michigan delegation has signed onto this resolution. We appreciate them in a bipartisan way for acknowledging the city of Detroit. Again, on July 24, we will make this special presentation to the city founders and the city followers, as well as the city residents. I appreciate this Congress allowing us to pass today House Concurrent Resolution 80. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our senior colleague. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for that very eloquent historical trail for the City of Detroit as we celebrate our 300th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to our final speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who is to the east of the City of Detroit, a leader and soon to be another leader in the State of Michigan.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, do the math. This Congress says we will have a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the next 10 years. But we have a budget that is before us, and I am opposed to the flawed rule, as well as the flawed conference report that has been brought to us. It does not even allow us the customary 3 days to look over the numbers. It is a nearly $2 trillion budget. We have heard about the surpluses. This budget has nothing in it for school safety; no more dollars in it to reduce class size; no dollars for special education; no new dollars. If there is a surplus, why not? No new dollars for school construction. Why not? This budget cuts community development block grants that would help communities all over America. Why? This budget cuts funding for public housing and drug programs for public housing. There is a surplus; why no money? This budget cuts nearly a million dollars, excuse me, that is a billion dollars, to our veterans who have served this country. There is a surplus. Why no money in these programs? This budget is nearly $2 trillion. Our country is enjoying the surplus that we built over the last 8 years. Do we not want some of our dollars into education and those categories I mentioned? Do we not want some of those dollars back into our communities to help our community development? This budget is a charade. The process was a charade. With the popular vote in America, Democrats got more than the other side. They did not let our Democratic leader into the budget negotiations. Come on, America, let us hear it from you. It is a flawed rule, it is a flawed budget, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Elimination Act. I say this with reservation, because I am not against tax relief for our nations small farmers and small businesses. In fact, our Democratic leadership on the Ways and Means Committee has drafted a more sensible estate tax relief bill. I am, however against the measure offered here on the floor. The Republican bill is simply too costly, it fails to stimulate a fragile economy and it fails to address the priorities of the America people. This bill would cost the American people $662 billion if the estate tax was immediately repealed. However, in order to hide this fact, the Republican majority has stretched the measure out over 11 years. This bill finally repeals the estate tax in 2011. When added to the two other tax measures passed earlier in this house, the price tag of the President's tax cut will skyrocket to $2.9 trillion. Once again, we are dealing with a tax measure directed at the very few. Today we are dealing with a tax that, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, applied to only 2 percent of all estates based on IRS data from 1998. So America, we now operate in a time where 2 percent of estate control the legislative agenda of the U.S. House of Representatives. The first thing this measure does--I repeat, the first thing done in this measure . . . is the removal of the current surtax for estates larger than $10 million. It appears that while the President and some members of his Cabinet will receive significant benefits, our Nation's family-farms and small businesses are instructed to hold for tax relief until an unspecified future date. On the other hand, our Democratic leadership on the Ways and Means Committee has crafted an estate tax relief measure that goes to those estates that need it most. The Democratic substitute, once fully phased in, provides a $2.5 million exclusion per individual and a $5 million exclusion per couple. Most significantly, the bill, effective January 1, 2002, would increase the current estate tax exclusion from $675,000 to $2 million providing immediate relief to our farmers and small businesses. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Why are we here debating this massive tax cut? If my memory serves me correctly, the President, during the campaign, stated over and over again, that his first priority in office was the issue of education reform. We have been in session for 4 months now and we have yet to consider any substantive education measure. As Democrats, and at least half of the American public that voted for Al Gore feared, the President does not seem to be able to, or simply has chosen not to use his position of influence to move education in the Congress. America, I challenge you to keep an eye on this President. If there were any doubts as to where his loyalties are, if there were any doubts about his sincerity about being bipartisan, if there are any doubts on whether or not he would represent all Americans--those doubts should be no more. His loyalties are to business and the wealthy, his policy has been extremely partisan, and he has chosen not to represent the least in our society. To my colleagues, I urge you to vote against H.R. 8 and support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding the time to me. You do the math, America. We think we will have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. We also think we can tell what the weather will be next week or tomorrow. That is about what it is when we talk about projections. We do not have the money. We, Democrats, do support a tax cut. Yes, we have a surplus, but Americans also want election reform so that every vote will count, education reform, prescription drugs, health care access, and, yes, to save our Social Security and Medicare plan. With this tax cut today that is before us and the trillion dollars we have already passed, we will not be able to address those needs that American people want. We want to do something about the marriage penalty, and the Democrats have a plan. But do you not think, America, that we ought to take care of the needs of Americans and see what the real numbers are and then offer a tax plan that will work? Support the Democratic alternative. The other will lead us into deficit.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity in America today to invest in America. Sadly, the budget before us and the underlying budget does not do that. The Democratic budget will do that. It will provide a tax cut with one-third of the budget surplus. It will also require one-third be spent for Social Security and Medicare. Why then are we now debating a budget that will put us back into deficit that took us 18 years to get out of under the former Republican administration? This budget gives no taxes, no relief, for over one-third of the families in this country with children. Over one-third of the families with children get nothing under this budget proposal. On the other hand, the Democratic proposal gets at least $130 million more into education. We have heard a lot today, America, but the facts are clear, the Republican budget will take us back into deficit. The Republican budget will take us back into deficit. The Democratic budget, on the other hand, will invest in America, your children and our families. Vote for the Democratic budget.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, it is time to celebrate the City of Detroit. This year Detroit turns 300 years young, and we are presently in the midst of a year long celebration commemorating the City's founding. As a Detroiter, I am proud of the contributions our City has made to the State of Mchigan and the Nation. Detroit is the oldest major city in the Mdwest. It began as a small French community along the Detroit River when Antione de la Mothe Cadillac founded a garrison and fur trading post on the site in 1701. Over the last three centuries, Detroit has played a pivotal part in our Nation's development. It was a key staging area during the French and Indian War, and one of the key areas which inspired early Americans to move westward. In the 19th Century, the City was a vocal center of antislavery sentiment. It played an important role on the road to freedom for tens of thousands of African-American slaves who sought refuge in Canada by means of the Underground Railroad. Detroit is best known perhaps for the industrial center that put the Nation on wheels. Because of entrepreneurs of the likes of Henry Ford, automobiles were made affordable to people of average incomes. Automotive transportation was no longer a privilege of the wealthy. With the invention of the Model T, many working Americans found it within their means to purchase an automobile. With its growth as an industrial center, Detroit also played a central role in the development of the modern-day labor movement. I am proud that Detroit is home of the United Automobile Workers Union, the UAW, and many other building, service and industrial trades unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Although Detroit's association with the automobile industry earned it the nickname of ``Motown,'' it was Barry Gordy who made the ``Motown Sound'' come alive and made Detroit a major entertainment capital in the United States. People are still ``Dancin'in the Streets'' in Detroit and throughout the country to sounds of The Supremes, The Temptations, The Four Tops, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, the Jackson Five and many more Motown Artists. Detroit is also home to the Queen of Soul, Ms. Aretha Franklin. Now, how's that for a little ``R-E- S-P-E-C-T.'' Mr. Speaker, there are many more wonderful things about my City, and they are listed in legislation that I, Mr. Conyers and the entire Michigan Congressional Delegation are introducing today commemorating and congratulating the City of Detroit on the occasion of its tricentennial. I am also gratified to note that similar legislation will be introduced in the Other Body. In offering this legislation, I am pleased that it has the support of the entire Michigan Congressional Delegation. I thank my Michigan colleagues for their support, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support the passage of this resolution.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the University of Akron's Political Resources Page and the Congressional Research Service both of whom were very helpful in helping me acquire this information. i. historical background African-Americans in Congress Of the more than 11,000 representatives in U.S. Congress since 1789, there have been 105 black Members of Congress. 101 elected to the House and four to the Senate. Most of these members entered the institution in two distinct waves. The first wave started during Reconstruction. The first black Member of Congress was Hiram Rhodes Revels (R-Ms) who served in the Senate during the 41st Congress (1870). The first black Member of the House was Joseph H. Rainey (R-SC). He also served in the 41st Congress. A total of 22 blacks who were in Congress came from states with high black populations--the former slave states of the South. From 1870 to 1897 South Carolina elected eight blacks to the House. Mississippi and Louisiana each elected one black to the House. Between the Fifty-second and Fifty-sixth Congresses (1891-1901) there was only one black member per session. Four former slave states--Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia--never elected any black representative during the Reconstruction era despite very sizable black populations. Second Wave of Blacks in Congress The second wave began in 1928 with the election of Republican Oscar DePriest from an inner-city Chicago District. He was defeated in 1934 by Arthur Mitchell, the first black Democrat elected to Congress. In 1944, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was elected Congressman in Harlem, New York. For the first time since 1891 there was more than one black representative in the House. In 1950, there was another breakthrough for black representation when Representative William Dawson (R-Il) gained enough seniority to become the first black to chair a standing committee, the Government Operations Committee. In 1960, Powell became Chairman of the more important Education and Labor Committee. Another breakthrough came in 1966 when Edward W. Brooke was elected as a Republican Senator from Massachusetts, a state whose population was less than 3 percent African-American. Brooke served until his defeat in 1978. African-American Women in Congress In 1968, Shirley Chisolm (D-NY) became the first African-American woman to serve in the House. She served in the 91st through the 97th Congresses (1969-1983). Since that time, 20 other African-American women have been elected. In 1992, Carol Moseley Braun (D-Il) became the first African-American woman and the first African-American Democrat to serve in the Senate. Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Tx) became the first African-American woman from the South to serve in Congress. Party Affiliation The majority of African-American Members have been Democrats. There have been 78 African-American Democrats and 27 African-American Republicans. African-American members of Congress have served on all major committees. Sixteen have served as committee chairmen, 15 in the House and one in the Senate. ii. closing Mr. Speaker, the list of great African-American leaders could go on and on. And it is continually growing. Take a look around this very body and you will see a new generation of African-American leaders who serve the American people. I emphasize this point because the African-American struggle for rights has benefited all Americans. Whether they be poor, women, minority or disabled, all Americans have benefited from our attempt to make our democracy accountable to all of its citizens. It is important that we recognize the contribution of African American Members of Congress and their service to the American people. It's important that we capture the rich lessons of their lives which will inspire generations to come. I have joined more than 40 of our colleagues in cosponsoring a concurrent, bipartisan resolution for the printing of a revised edition of the House document entitled, ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870- 1989.'' The latest edition of this work, published in 1990, contains brief biographies, photographs and other important historical information about the 66 distinguished African Americans who had served in either chamber of Congress as of January 23, 1990. Since that time, another 40 distinguished African Americans have served. On the heels of this past February's national celebration of Black History Month, I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution, which directs the Library of Congress to revise and update this volume. It will be a tremendous resource for Members, scholars, students and others. Mr. Hoyer's action on behalf of this measure is evidence of how far our nation has come. When the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1965, there were five African Americans in Congress. Today, there are nearly 40. We have come a long way, but our work is not yet done. This past election has illustrated the need for us to reform our democracy. Never again should we be forced to relive the civil rights battles fought so long ago. The events of the 2000 Presidential Election was a potent reminder of a legacy of disenfranchisement that we believed existed only in the annals of our nation history. The election of African Americans to Congress was the result of the dedication of many of those commemorated in the publication Black Americans in Congress. Revising and updating this publication speaks symbolically to the continued struggle not only to maintain the right to vote, but to ensure that all votes are counted once cast.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to the tax proposal submitted by President Bush. I do so for many reasons, none of which are founded on the ``myth'' so blatantly pushed by the President, that the Democrats are engaged in class warfare. We are not here to engage in warfare between the rich and the not-so- rich. We are here today to preserve those things which most of us here in Congress have fought so hard to promote over the course of the past 8 years. We are here to maintain the fiscal discipline that has given us unprecedented prosperity in good times. We are here to maintain the fiscal discipline necessary to insure that in uncertain times, the nation does not slip into recession. Today we should be mindful of the state of the nation back in 1992. Just a little more than 8 years ago we saw an economy that was faltering. Unemployment peaked at nearly 7%, as layoffs spread throughout the land. Consumer confidence was low. In the political arena fingers were pointed in all directions. President George H.W. Bush's administration blamed the voodoo economics of the previous Reagan era. Democrats agreed. The Republican faithful argued that the excesses of the Democrat Congress resulted in the sharp economic downturn. In this context, former President Bush chose to do what he believed was the responsible thing. He chose to raise taxes--and he suffered the consequences. He suffered the scorn of his political opponents, but more importantly, he suffered the scorn of the majority of the Republican establishment. Although he was trying to do the responsible thing and mitigate the increasing federal deficit, he violated the cardinal rule for which Republicans claim to stand. He violated that often repeated Republican refrain, that ``God created Republicans to cut taxes''--not increase them. Well today we stand before the American people because President George W. Bush faces a choice similar to the one his father made: whether to do the responsible thing, or to do what history has so vividly illustrated is the wrong thing to do. I am sure his father's experience resonated prominently in his decision to forward this tax proposal we consider today. His father made a tough choice to increase taxes. Former President Bush chose to counter the policies of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, whose history I am sure also resonates prominently in President Bush's decisions today. After all, President Reagan drastically cut taxes during the 1980's and he is revered by the Republican establishment. Republicans loved his execution of Republican ideals and credit him with the restoration of hope and optimism to the American people. Most importantly, however, in the Reagan lesson, is the fact that he was reelected for a second term. Today, I stand here to remind the American people of the cost of Mr. Reagan's policies. I come from the city of Detroit. I represent a population that was devastated in many ways by the policies of the Reagan administration. I watched as services critical to my city's youth were cut. No longer were funds made available for successful after school programs. Budgets for parks and recreation stagnated, leaving few alternatives for youth activity. The loss of these benefits soon led to the feelings of despair and desperation. Drugs plagued the inner city and the introduction of crack cocaine into our neighborhoods devastated the community. Today the City of Detroit is still digging out from the plague of crack-cocaine in the 1980s. I point this out to say there are consequences to this tax-proposal-- both in economic, and most importantly, in human terms. Sure I am for a tax cut. I am not, however, for irresponsibility. I ask the American People to reflect on what we consider here today. Today, there are projected surpluses of approximately $5.6 trillion. Of this amount, $2.5 trillion in attributable to the Social Security Trust Fund and $.4 trillion or $400 billion is attributable to the Medicare Trust Fund, leaving the Non-Social Security, Non-Medicare Surplus at $2.7 trillion. President Bush has proposed a tax-cut across all income brackets. The cost of which is $1 trillion dollars not including other tax proposals he plans to introduce. If we include these other proposals, the tax cut could cost anywhere from $1.6 trillion to upwards of $2 trillion. Additionally, the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan committee on taxation, recently released estimates that show that the true cost of President Bush's Proposal exceeds the cost listed in the Administration's Budget. Their study also shows that the cost of remedying the problems associated with the Alternative Minimum Tax would increase to $300 billion over 10 years under the Bush proposal. This would raise the cost of the Bush tax cuts to nearly $2.5 trillion over the next ten years. This would mean that only $200 billion dollars of the surplus would remain for other national priorities. In order to put this in perspective, I would like to point out that the cost of the proposed national missile defense system is estimated to be nearly $30.2 billion. Improving the lives of our military personnel is estimated to cost nearly $100 billion. We do not know the cost of privatizing a portion of Social Security, or other increases in spending promised by President Bush during the campaign. And even after we address these concerns this bill does not even consider the cost of reforming Medicare, the cost of a prescription drug benefit (estimated at nearly $200 billion) or the cost of addressing this nation's education needs. I would also like the American people to ask themselves a question. Would you in your own personal finances write checks based on money that you did not have in your account? I would bet that most Americans would never be so careless with their expenses and the expenses of their families. So how can we today afford to be so careless with surpluses that are not yet in treasury accounts? Nor would you spend money for a vacation, or new car, without looking at how such an expenditure would affect the rest of your budget. You would not go out and buy a car knowing that the payment may prevent you from being able to pay your rent or mortgage. Yet here, we will not have the opportunity to debate the full budget in Congress prior to voting on this tax bill. Forget about the fact that by law (the Congressional Budget Act) Congress must pass a budget before it passes tax breaks. We were told that the President's priority was education. You would think that as a body, we would consider education legislation first. Today we see the true priorities of the administration and the leadership of this Congress. President Bush and the Republican leadership tell the American people that they care about education, yet they war willing to pass a tax cut that may jeopardize that very priority. Don't be surprised if we later learn that in order to accommodate today's tax cut, we must make sacrifices in education and other national priorities. I do not stand here today to criticize without offering a credible alternative. Moreover, I would like the public to know that there are a number of alternative proposals from both Democrats and Republicans. However the leadership, through the rules committee, has limited the consideration of many of these proposals--this all in the so called spirit of transparency and bipartisanship. Do not be led to believe that Democrats do not believe in tax relief. There is an alternative Democrat tax-cut proposal. The Democrat proposal is a simple budget plan that directs \1/3\ of the Non Medicare, Non-Social Security surplus towards a tax cut, \1/3\ toward our national priorities like education and a prescription drug benefit and \1/3\ of the surplus to paying down the national debt. This tax cut is responsible in its scope and addresses the other priorities expressed by the American people. More importantly, the Democratic alternative would provide tax relief where tax relief is needed most-- to the working families of this country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, according to the National Science Foundation, over 1 million people suffer musculoskeletal disorders which cost the nation between $45 billion and $54 billion in compensation expenditures, lost wages, and decreased productivity. The National Science Foundation and other research institutions studied this issue and they came to the conclusion that these injuries can be reduced substantially with well-designed workplaces. It was the Administration of President George H. W. Bush that established the relationship of ergonomically designed jobs and work- related illnesses in 1989. The results of a Labor Department study investigation found that flawed workplace designs is one of the leading causes of work-related illnesses and employers' costs under state workers' compensation laws. In response to these findings, the Labor Department--under a different administration, the Clinton administration--issued a proposed ergonomic standard for public comment in 1994. But Congress intervened in the rulemaking process. Congress adopted language in the fiscal year 1995 Labor Department spending bill that prohibited the Department from issuing a final standard. Subsequent prohibitions were congressionally imposed in fiscal years 1996 and 1998. In October 1998, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that identified a significant statistical link between workplace exposures and musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA issued a draft rule in 1999 and published a final rule by November 2000. In the course of this issue's 10-year history, distinguished Members on the other side of the aisle have sought to kill this effort to promote workplace safety. We find ourselves here again debating an issue that threatens to expose millions of hard working Americans to workplace hazards due to jobs that require repetitive movements and muscular stress. Supporters of this joint resolution advance the argument that if this resolution of disapproval is enacted, the Bush administration will pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics. It's hard to take that argument seriously when the other side has consistently and persistently opposed every effort by the Labor Department to issue an ergonomic standard. Moreover, the interests that oppose the current ergonomic rule cite that the costs of complying with the standard are likely to be $90 or $100 billion. But they do not cite the cost savings to businesses in workers' compensation costs and lost productivity. According to OSHA, the estimates are that the standard will cost American businesses $4.5 billion annually, but it will also save businesses $9.1 billion in workers' compensation costs and lost productivity. The special interests who support this resolution of disapproval are the same interests who argued that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 would impose too much of a cost and administrative burden on employers. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The special interests who support this resolution of disapproval are the same interests who argued that increasing the minimum wage in 1996 would weaken the economy and reduce job growth. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The special interests that support this resolution of disapproval argue that the ergonomic standard is too burdensome and costly for employers to implement. They are wrong now and they will be proven wrong in the future. How can an ergonomic standard be burdensome to an employer when the employer is vested with the responsibility of determining whether an employee injury is work related? It's not the federal government determining if the employee's injury is work related. It's the employer! How can the opponents of this standard honestly suggest that bureaucrats are imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to workplace safety when it is the employer who determines how best to deal with ergonomic problems in their workforce? One can only conclude that supporters of the resolution of disapproval are the same forces who have little regard for workplace safety and are long-time opponents of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you support workplace justice, if you support the right of people to work in a healthy environment, if you support basic human decency, then I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Over 45 million seniors and over 30 million American citizens use Medicare and Social Security. At a time when we have record surpluses, we must make sure that we sustain those people and that we do what is right with the surplus. It is going to be impossible to put in a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare, and we should, and at the same time take care of health care, housing, and other needs, education, that the people of America want. We need a lockbox, we need a tax cut, but they both must be responsible. We must save Social Security, we must protect Medicare. Let this House act accordingly and take care of the citizens of this country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank our ranking member for allowing me the time to come forward, and I thank also the two chairmen, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT) for bringing this to the floor quickly. As a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, where I serve on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, this small appropriation that we are giving India today hopefully will be a first step in assisting them with the tragedy that they suffered on January 26. I want to express my sympathy to the victims of the devastating earthquake and let them know that this Congress, USAID, the World Bank and the Asian Bank are working in partnership to make sure that we do what we can to help to rebuild that fabulous country. It is important that we show our appreciation and support because millions of Indian-Americans, as has already been stated, here in this country have lost families in their homeland; over 20,000 and up to 100,000 people losing their lives. So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to also express sympathy and offer support, and I hope that as we work through the foreign operations budget we will find more financing and more support for the people of India.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I say to our Member from Ohio, the distinguished judge and prosecutor, for not only leading the issue today but for her forthrightness in bringing to this body such legislative and judicial experience, prosecutorial experience that certainly has helped us, we appreciate her leadership, and I thank her very much. Today, this afternoon or tomorrow, the United States Senate will vote on the next Attorney General. There has been much discussion about Senator Ashcroft for the last month now. Extensive hearings have been held. Much media has had its coverage. And even in this body as women in this Chamber today walked over to the Senate Chamber to stand with those opposing his nomination, we come today to a very sad time in American history. To be the top lawyer, the number one lawyer in our country requires that the person be noble, that they be intelligent, that they understand the world in which they live, and that they understand that this is a very diverse economy and country that we live in. The person should also be sensitive to the needs of the poor, the disenfranchised, and those who need a little bit more help from their government. This is said to be the greatest country in the world. We are certainly the richest country in the world and in a position to offer more to our citizens than we offer today. The Attorney General being selected either today or tomorrow is lacking in many of the qualities that I believe are necessary in an Attorney General and the main lawyer for our country. Forty-six years ago, Brown v. Board of Education was had in court and passed, a desegregation case that said open up the schools, 46 years ago, so that children could work side by side from different nationalities and partake of a quality education. Brown v. Board of Education. Senator Ashcroft has not only tested the rightfulness of that decision of Brown v. Board of Education which allowed all of America's children to receive quality education in integrated classrooms but has challenged its validity, and I think that is wrong for someone who will be the top lawyer for our country. Roe v. Wade just celebrated over 25 years of sound judgment that this country has lived under for over 25 years. Senator Ashcroft has challenged and tested Roe v. Wade on more than one occasion. It is one thing to have strong beliefs, and we all live in a great society where we can do that and express our differences, but it is quite another on the one hand to disqualify Bill Lann Lee as our civil rights expert as he did on many occasions because of his views; and here we stand today, hours away of nominating a young man who has very, very different views from many Americans, and the same barometer is not being used. There is something tragically wrong with that. It was mentioned earlier that Ambassador Hormel was going for his hearing, asking for a hearing before the Senate so that he could be confirmed. Ambassador Hormel is a homosexual, and everyone knows that and it is all right in our country. We support that. People are what they are. God has given them the right to be that. This country validates that and not one of us because of race, religion, ethnicity or our hetero or homosexual tendencies should keep us from serving our country. It has been documented that Senator Ashcroft would not even give Ambassador Hormel a hearing. That is wrong. So if you talk about from affirmative action to hate crimes, to access to the process through hearings so that you can be heard, Senator Ashcroft does not meet the test. He should not be confirmed as our Attorney General. Further, Senator Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, who again lost their tax status on more than one occasion because of the policies of that university. Now we have a Senator who received an honorary degree from the university, nominated and soon to be confirmed as our next Attorney General. I think it is unfortunate that President Bush made such a volatile announcement and nomination of Senator Ashcroft at this time, at a time when we have gone through a very turbulent election, when many Americans feel that they were not treated fairly, votes were not counted, not allowed to vote, very angry, even as we speak today, that we come here today as Members of this House of Representatives, standing strong, asking the Senate to take an action that the American people would want them to take. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time. It is not too late to withdraw that nomination. To put an American citizen there who will enforce the laws and not bring their own views into the law. This country cannot afford to be fragmented much more. This past election demonstrated that we are a great country. Those same circumstances in another country would have blood in the street. I do not advocate that. We are a country and we settle our differences, but let us not fool each other. These are perilous times. These are critical times. Today it was announced that the surplus is larger than ever before, ever even than 6 months ago. Are we going to invest in America's schools and children and health centers and seniors? It is important that all of this be considered and that as we talk about Senator Ashcroft today and whether he will be confirmed or not, look at the views of the man. We are a greater country than that. We need people to serve who will represent all of the people. I do not believe that Senator Ashcroft has the ability, has the sensitivity or is able to represent over half of the American citizenry. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to say our remarks, to share with Senator Ashcroft who, I am told, will be confirmed. We hope you listen, Senator. We hope that you will enforce the laws on the books and not try to change them. We hope that you will be sensitive to civil rights issues, affirmative action, hate crimes. We hope that you will allow people hearings who come before your body so that they can be rightfully heard in this just society that we live in. I hope you are listening, Senator Ashcroft. We are going to be watching you. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as we acknowledge, unfortunately, that poor women and children all over the world will be unable to participate in the $425 million that this Congress passed in the Foreign Operations bill for family planning. Unfortunately, about 10 days ago, President Bush signed an executive order that would not allow international family planning clinics to use the 400-plus million for family planning educational services as this Congress passed. My colleagues might remember that, in that same Foreign Operations bill, we said, as a compromise, that no funds would be expended until February, 6 months after the beginning of the fiscal year. It is unfortunate now, after much trepidation, a lot of meetings, a lot of bipartisan cooperation, that we now find some of the poorest women in countries around the world who receive funds from several countries unable to use the appropriations that this Congress provided for family planning. People in need of health services unrelated to family planning are affected by this executive order. The executive order says that no monies from our Treasury, and it has been appropriated and approved, $425 million, can be used for health services in those countries that counsel on family planning. We think that is wrong. We think that because we have put so much time and effort into this, and because America is the number one country in the world, that we have a responsibility to help those poorer countries who are in need of those health dollars, health dollars for diabetes, health dollars for heart disease, health dollars for a myriad of illnesses that those clinics help. Our $400 million that was appropriated in a bipartisan way with the knowledge that those funds not be expended until February; now those funds cannot be used in those poor countries. We think it is a shame. It is called international gag rule because those countries across the world who use our dollars also get other dollars from other places to help them in their family planning efforts. We think it is unfortunate. We think President Bush has made a mistake and we hope that he will revisit this. Vulnerable populations around the world look to America for leadership. They look to us to help them with their family planning, to help them with their childhood illnesses, to help them with their health concerns. As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, we had much debate on this issue. We think it is unfortunate, now that we stand here, not to able to use funds that have been appropriated for the poorest of countries in the world, from the leaders of the free world, the citizens here in the United States. Madam Speaker, if in fact this policy stands, can my colleagues imagine the hardships that those poor families will feel around the world, not able to use their health dollars for those illnesses, including family planning. I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will take another look at this. I hope that President Bush will rescind that executive order. Family planning is one of the most sacred things that we have as women. God created women and created men with certain characteristics. Only women can bear children, and we want to bear them when we need them, when we want them, and when we can take care of them. That is what that appropriation did that we have in our Foreign Operations bill. So I call on President Bush to rethink his position. There are millions of women across the world who look to America for assistance. $400 million is a small piece of the pie, but it certainly can save many lives, help many families and ensure protection for children who are poor and who need our assistance. So, Madam Speaker, again, I ask President Bush, please rescind the executive order, lift the gag rule on international planning. We call on him today and we hope he will heed our call. Madam Speaker, the announcement of President Bush of his intent to reinstate the so-called ``Mexico City'' policy represents an abandonment of women and families in need around the globe. In December, Congress voted to lift from this year's foreign spending bill the unfair restrictions imposed on international family planning providers. Keeping out of future appropriations what is often referred to as the ``global gag rule'' is both a moral and economic imperative. The controversial Mexico City language specifies two major conditions that foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) must meet in order to receive family planning funds from the United States. First, the NGO must not perform abortions, except in cases of forcible rape or incest, or where the mother's life is endangered if the pregnancy is carried to term. This condition refers specifically to NGO's using private funds to provide abortion services since no U.S. funds have been used to perform abortions abroad since 1973. Secondly, the NGO must not violate their country's abortion laws, or engage in any effort to change the laws of their country governing abortion. This means that participation in a rally, the lobbying of government representatives, or any advocacy efforts by an organization to either allow or even maintain legal abortions in their own countries would be grounds for the United States to rescind funding. Such a restriction is a clear violation of the right to free speech and would be unconstitutional in the United States. Let us intimately examine the very real and humanitarian effects of withholding funding for international family planning. Oftentimes, facilities which provide family planning information also provide the majority of health-related services to a given population. When the only health care facility in a rural community closes due to insufficient operating costs, who pays the price? The impoverished mother of seven seeking a tubal ligation to prevent future unplanned pregnancies pays the price. Young newlyweds desiring to learn about oral contraception and condom use, as well as natural family planning pays the price. A village in need of medical treatment for tuberculosis, malaria, iron-deficiency, or any other illness unrelated to reproductive issues pays the price. If the United States is serious about its resolve to enhance the democracies, economies, health and education infrastructures, and human living conditions in the developing world, then it must acknowledge the interdependence of these sectors in a country's development. Why should we realistically expect to witness significant increases in economic growth within the trade, banking, or manufacturing industries when much of a country's population remains formally uneducated without access to basic medical services and information? The difficult process of international development requires a comprehensive approach, congressional funds appropriated for this purpose have a proven track record of effectiveness, but are in need of continued support. NGO's and health care facilities provide invaluable services that a developing nation's government is often unable to provide for financial reasons. Understand unequivocally that no U.S. federal funds provide abortion services in this country or abroad. Let us never again allow this fact to be blurred within our discussions and debates with supporters of the global gag rule. The removal of the Mexico City language from the Foreign Operations appropriations bill was a declaration by the United States that it is truly committed to the democratic principles upon which the nation was conceived. The bill reaffirms our proactive concern for impoverished and underserved people throughout the globe. It is my sincere hope that the new administration will demonstrate the compassion and moral leadership of the United States by retaining as a top priority the health and well being of women, children, and families worldwide.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, giving honor to God who is the head of my life, I join with my colleagues to really stand here and say what a giant we have lost. As was mentioned earlier, Congressman Dixon said, ``See you next week,'' and he will, because his spirit lives, and it will always live as long as we remember him. Congressman Dixon supported me before coming to this House of Representatives. Every day as we served as a member of the Committee on Appropriations for this House, his strength, his intelligence, and his endurance was a light for all of us to follow. Over the rostrum here, it says ``In God we trust.'' Our Nation, this House, and the world is in perilous times at this moment. Let the spirit of Congressman Julian Dixon guide us through these troubled waters. If we should use his spirit and his strength to get us through these difficult times, God will bless us, this country will be a better place, and the world will be a safer place. So, Mr. Speaker, as we honor his memory today, let us not forget who he was and what he stood for, fighting injustice wherever it reared its ugly head, racism, sexism. This is a great country, and the best homage we can pay to Congressman Julian Dixon is to honor that memory and instill those principles in this House. My love goes out to Bettye and the family, always know that we are here to support you. Julian Dixon, through this House of Representatives, can lead us the way into the future. God bless you, my brother, and may you rest in peace.