Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member; and I hope to get it in an authorizing bill as well as to rectify it permanently. We suggest that the formula would be better distributed on a fairer basis if it would use the 12-month rather than the 3-month window, so that the housing authorities can get the dollars they so sorely need and deserve. I have a list here of several organizations who support this fairer funding amendment and will be working with the ranking member and the chairman of the authorizing committee to make sure that as we save the section 8 program that it is funded properly and that the money is then distributed properly. Organizations such as the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities support the fairer distribution; organizations such as the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials support the distribution using the 12-month window rather than the 3-month. The National Association of State Housing Agencies supports using the 12- month need and flexibility rather than the 3-month window, which has an unfair distribution of those dollars. Also, the National Leased Housing Association also believes that we ought to consider distributing those dollars on a 12-month average rather than a 3-month average. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition also believes we should do that as well. It is important that as we look at the section 8 program, and as was mentioned earlier, and I will not go back over all of that again, that we not only know the need and how important it is but that public housing authorities must be able to meet those needs in a better and fairer way. We have to be able to do what is necessary so that the program is saved. The portability of those vouchers is something we want to maintain so that individuals, families, and children are able to create and have safe, clean, decent housing. The disparity that exists when you use the 3-month window is really appalling and not equal and not fair. This prevents the displacement and the air that adds to the displacement of our elderly and disabled and other tenants who are sometimes in private development. They need these protections, and they need to make sure the distribution of the funding is fairer. I know Chairman Knollenberg has raised a point of order. Would my good Michigan colleague and chairman of the committee join me in a dialogue?

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague. I understand the gentleman's point of order, and I respect it highly as our chairman, but I wanted to ask if the gentleman would work with us to make a fairer distribution of the section 8 dollars as we go forward into next year. I commend the chairman for putting in the extra dollars in this 2006 budget so that we can rectify some of that across the country.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his time and energy on that; and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we will work to strengthen the section 8 program in general and certainly the distribution of the funding. I hope that we will also work together to make permanent a 12-month distribution of those funds and not use the 3-month window, which will better serve the public housing authorities in this country. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment addressing the growing concern I have with the unfair distribution of renewal funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The trend of the past few years for providing allocations to state and local housing agencies for voucher renewal funding has been to base budget allocations on a 3-month ``snap-shot,'' from May through July in 2005. The justification for selecting those 3 months is only because that was the most recent fiscal quarter for which data was available. There was no consideration of local market condition changes throughout the year in different areas of the country. While I greatly appreciate Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for recognizing this disparity, and including a set-aside of $45 million to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose snap- shot did not accurately reflect leasing levels and costs for 2004, this ``fix'' still does not address the fundamental problem. The essential problem is that we are basing yearly budgets on just 3 months of costs. That leaves 9 months of fluctuating market conditions unaccounted for. At a time when rising energy costs are driving utility costs up, and job markets are fluctuating, particularly in areas like Michigan with its manufacturing base, we cannot ignore the impact of these market changes on subsidy needs. Similarly, housing agencies are required to pay portability costs for families who are relocating, though agencies have control over rent subsidies for those areas. They must simply compensate by reducing or denying assistance for someone else. This arbitrary snap-shot creates a disparity where some housing agencies wind up with more money than they need to meet their commitments, and others will have to turn families out into the cold because their under-estimated budgets could no longer support the same number of vouchers. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would implement a formula for allocating renewal funding to state and local housing agencies that better captures the effects of fluctuating local conditions, while adding a cost containment incentive and retaining congressional control over total spending. It would preserve a key feature of funding policy created last year in fiscal 2005 appropriations by continuing to base budgets on leasing and costs in the prior year, but to avoid unfair impacts of using a 3- month ``snapshot,'' the most recent data available for a 12-month period would be used. My amendment would help prevent the displacement of the elderly, the disabled, and the other tenants of privately owned developments by guaranteeing stable funding for tenant protection vouchers by exempting those un-negotiable costs from proration. If total funding allocations are below the sum of the calculated budgets, the distribution of funds would be prorated so each housing agency would receive the same percentage of funds they should have if fully funded. Thus in times of constrained resources, there would be a shared sacrifice; each agency would still receive the same proportional amount. Agencies currently manage their program over a 12-month period, with fluctuation in costs and leasing from month-to-month. A 12-month snapshot would provide a smoother and more accurate reflection of an agency's program reality than a 3-month snapshot, which could represent a hill or a valley in its budget year. I know some may worry that agencies reimbursed for their actual costs, have no incentive to keep costs down, but all agencies will be constrained by the amount Congress provides regardless, and they know that, which in and of itself is a reason to constrain costs. This formula is simply a more fair way of distributing limited resources. Mr. Chairman, if Congress wants to legitimately help American families have access to safe, affordable housing we must work toward a fair, balanced policy and seriously consider real market factors that families must face in their communities. Endorsers of the Proposed Hybrid Voucher Funding Policy 1. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2. Jody Geese, Executive Director, Belmont Metropolitan Housing Authority (Martins Ferry, OH). 3. Neal Molloy, Executive Director, Housing Authority of St. Louis County, Missouri. 4. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (detailed proposal only, excluding item 4(a)(i)). 5. National Council of State Housing Agencies. 6. National Leased Housing Association. 7. National Low Income Housing Coalition. 8. Ohio Housing Authorities Conference. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 140.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I was not present on votes held earlier this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 458, rollcall No. 324; and ``no'' on the previous question on H.R. 341, rollcall 325.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for yielding me this time and wish a happy birthday to our chairman and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership as we work for the world right here in this Chamber. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for helping us to fashion a bill that is fair. Yes, we could use more money. Our 302(b) allocations limit what we can do, but I think it is a perfect start. The Senate has $1.5 billion more to spend than we have in our bill, and I believe in conference we will see a better bill. I want to highlight a few things about why I strongly support this bill. Everyone says it is not enough. It is never enough. HIV/AIDS is funded at the highest level it has been. I want to commend the leadership of the subcommittee. We are over a billion dollars more than the President requested for HIV and AIDS. The Sudan and peacekeeping operations there, we are going in the right direction. We believe with this money to help Sudan we will be able to see some stability in that region soon. I want to speak about the Middle East. I am a strong proponent of peace in the Middle East. We must have that, and our partners there are working for that. I recently visited Egypt on my second visit there, and found that Egypt, which I already knew, some 70-plus million people, is our strongest military ally in the region. Egypt purchases our weapons and does our training and also stabilizes the other countries: Israel, with 3 to 4 million people; Jordan with 7 or 8 million people; Lebanon, Syria. The government of Egypt and President Mubarak are the peacekeepers and have been very instrumental in the Abbas-Sharon talks, as well as the Lebanon and Syria talks. So I would hope we continue to fund Egypt to work with Egypt to make sure that they keep their commitments to the Middle East as well as to this government. I am very confident that as we work together with Egypt and with the Middle East, we will hope to see peace as we work there. This bill also provides educational opportunities for thousands of young people all over the world who are unable to fund their own education. We know education is the difference between success and failure in young people's lives; and the better the education, the more options young people have. Mr. Chairman, let us continue to work to build a better, stronger world. The U.S. is the largest country, the strongest country in the world. I would not want to be anywhere else. We have a responsibility to build, to grow, and to be good foreign partners. I believe this foreign ops bill for 2006 continues that effort. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the foreign operations bill. It is not perfect, but it is certainly a good piece of legislation as it moves through Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2006. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, subcommittee on foreign operations, I want to commend subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Member David Obey for fashioning a bill that reflects consensus and a commitment to supporting the needs of the global community. Our work on this bill was difficult given the limited 302(b) allocation that was imposed on the subcommittee. Despite the allocation constraints, the subcommittee members developed a bill that was roughly $2.5 billion below the president's request of $22.8 billion. Our bill recommends a funding level of $20.3 billion and includes a number of strong provisions. Our bill provides substantial funding for HIV/AIDS, including a plus up of $131 million above the president's request. The Global Fund is funded at $400 million, and is an increase of $200 million above the president's request. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is funded at $1.72 billion which is $150 million less than the president's request, and HIV/AIDS in the Child, Survival and Health (CSH) account is funded at $350 million, including $20 million in bilateral assistance to non-focus countries. Other HIV/AIDS funding totals $55 million. The level of funding in the bill reflects an awareness of the dimensions of the global pandemic and the necessity to commit resources to global communities that are being ravaged by the disease. I am also pleased that my colleagues recognized the importance of funding peacekeeping operations (PKO) in Sudan. The conflicts in the north/south and Darfur necessitate a financial and peacekeeping commitment to mitigate the proliferating violence, despair and disease that is rampant in Sudan. Given the prevailing tensions in the Middle East, particularly as those tensions relate to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, I am pleased about the level of funding provided to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) and for our allies in Egypt and Jordan. Our funding to the region reflects the importance the committee attaches to supporting countries that are committed to the goals of democratization and fighting terrorism. I also want to remind my colleagues that it is imperative that we continue to send the message to our allies in the Middle East and the Gulf region that their efforts to aggressively support democratization and to provide military security are greatly appreciated and reflected in our ongoing financial support. Despite the good news in this bill, I want to stress my concern that U.S. foreign assistance comprises only 1 percent of our Federal budget. I believe more could be done around the world if our Nation did not have to contend with a spiraling deficit that continues to balloon because we are entrenched in a military engagement in Iraq that costs roughly $150 million per day, $5 billion per month and $60 billion per year. I am very dismayed by these figures because they highlight the reality that there is no prospect for the removal of our troops from harm's way in the near term. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, I believe, represents a good faith effort to address the foreign assistance needs of our global neighbors. And while I wish that more resources were available to support worthy programs, we were limited in our allocation. Given current economic realities, this bill represents a good faith effort to fund essential programs around the world. The Senate allocation for foreign assistance is $1.5 billion higher than the House figure, so I am hopeful that perhaps even greater levels of funding will be provided for other critical areas of need. I am pleased to support this bill and encourage my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 3057.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 27, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 199, a resolution expressing the sense of the House regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995 (Rollcall No. 322); and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 155, a resolution urging the Government of the Republic of Albania to ensure that the parliamentary elections to be held on July 3, 2005, are conducted in accordance with international standards for free and fair elections (Rollcall No. 323).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and their staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House floor. Although the Committee has done its best, it is shameful the Committee had a limited amount of money to fund America's highest domestic priorities. This Republican led Congress and the Administration has put the $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1 million or more a year; and spending $250 billion fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ahead of the need to invest in our children, our education system, our health care system, and job training programs that will help American families. This bill does fund many of the programs that the Administration wanted to cut or eliminate programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational Education State Grants and Adult Education programs. However, the bill before us today sorely underfunds or eliminates too many programs. The bill zeroes out 48 programs. The list is enclosed. Also, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years. This bill cuts $806 million from No Child Left Behind. This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, despite hundreds of dollars of increases in college tuitions and costs. This bill cuts the Employment Service program by $116 million. The Employment Service program helps the unemployed with finding jobs and with 7.6 million Americans out of work this program is critical. Quality pre-natal care and health services for low-income mothers and infants should be a priority but this bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program by $24 million and the Healthy Start program targeted to communities with high infant mortality by $5 million. The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that helps families pay heating bills is cut by $198 million at a time when gas prices are at their highest. The Safe and Drug Free Schools program to keep school aged children off drugs and alcohol is cut by $37 million, which will devastate many families and communities. Preventative Health Block Grants to state health departments are cut by $31 million. The bill slashes the Education Technology Program by $196 million. The Community College Initiative is cut in half by $125 million. It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row. Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates 48 programs, including the elimination of $100 million Department of Health and Human Services' contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high-poverty school districts by eliminating the program. This bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 Title VII health profession training programs. These programs help ease the shortage of doctors, dentists, and other health professionals in underserved areas. This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program that helps health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured. Mr. Chairman, HR 3010 does not invest in our future, our families, or our country. The needs and values of Americans are not addressed. This bill shortchanges the American people. The Appropriations Committee had to make tough choices because of the strict budget allocations brought on by the misguided and irresponsible tax cuts for the richest of Americans and the cost of the war, but programs that help millions of Americans should not be on the chopping block. Congress is walking away from our commitment to equal opportunity and a better quality of life for all Americans. Greater access to job training, better jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and closing the disparity gap should be our goal. The Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education bill falls far short of achieving these goals and strengthening American families.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with the defense policy of the Bush Administration. While I disagree with the policy, I do not believe we should deprive our troops in the field and our military of the funds they need to protect our country. Since 2003, Congress has appropriated almost $250 billion for the war efforts by passing supplemental appropriations bills in 2003, 2004 and 2005. U.S. spending in Iraq will be at least $75 billion to $80 billion this year and could approach $400 billion by 2006, according to Congressional Quarterly. This approaches the $406 billion cost of the Korean War. Last month we passed a fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriation that totaled $82 billion, the second largest supplemental in history. Only one month has passed, and we find ourselves voting for another $45 billion for war funding for the first 6 months of the 2006 fiscal year. Assuming the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will remain at approximately the same level through 2006, the war costs will require another $40 to $45 billion. No money will be spent that is not directly related to the war. No money under the $45 billion supplemental portion of the bill will be spent on the Army's modularity initiative or to increase the permanent end strength of active duty forces. I am a strong advocate for developing a plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. We should keep in mind that the FY05 supplemental contained language that requires the Defense Department to provide Congress with a set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security in Iraq and a timetable for achieving these goals. The first report is due in July. We look forward to how DoD will define its strategies for success. This bill is framed principally by our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In my judgment the forces we have on the ground in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are doing a fabulous job, but the size of our Army and Marine Corps is just too small to do the job we are asking them to do. I hope the funds in the bill will provide for that shortfall. I support this bill in order to properly equip our troops with body armor, vehicle armor and other equipment to protect them from insurgent attacks. As much as I regret the War in Iraq, I cannot ignore the fact that we are a Nation at war. This bill recognizes and provides our troops with the tools they need to do their job.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 283, I was detained today because of flight delays, and had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would name the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks was a seamstress and the secretary of the local NAACP. Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in December 1955. She was arrested and fined for violating a city ordinance. Her defiance began a movement that ended legal segregation in America and made her an inspiration to people everywhere. The bus incident led to the formation of the Montgomery Association. The Association called for a boycott against the city-owned bus company. Black people citywide boycotted of the bus system for more than a year. As a result of the boycott and the actions of Rosa Parks, the Supreme Court eventually outlawed racial segregation on public transportation. Rosa Parks was born Rosa Louise McCauley in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, 1913. In 1957, Mrs. Parks and her husband Raymond moved to Detroit. She continued her seamstress career and later served on the staff of Congressman John Conyers. After the death of her husband, she founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. The Institute sponsors leadership programs for youth, including an annual summer program for teenagers called Pathways to Freedom. Rosa Parks' work helped change history. Her contributions to the Civil Rights Movement brought this country a step closer to equality. Her devotion to the Civil Rights Movement and the city of Detroit will always be remembered. I believe people who make meaningful contributions to society should be recognized and honored. Naming the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street at E. Jefferson after Mrs. Rosa Parks will remind everyone who drives by or visits the building of the contribution she made for Civil Rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement,'' Mrs. Rosa Parks, by becoming a cosponsor of my legislation to name the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street at E. Jefferson in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks. The building will serve as a reminder of her strong sacrifice and unwavering commitment to her community and America.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 13, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on S. 643, a bill to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to authorize State mediation programs (Rollcall No. 241), and ``aye'' on H.R. 2326, a bill designating the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office'' (Rollcall No. 242).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, in tribute to Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman, an induction ceremony into the Ring of Ancestors will take place on Sunday, June 12, 2005 at the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History. It is with great respect that this tribute is offered as a memorial for the life of Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman, the founder and First Holy Patriarch of the Shrines of the Black Madonna of the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church. Whereas, Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman was born Albert B. Cleage, Jr. in Indianapolis, Indiana on June 13, 1911. He graduated from Wayne State University, where he studied sociology, and the Oberlin Graduate School of Theology. He was a social caseworker with the Detroit Department of Public Welfare before entering the seminary. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman served pastorates at Lexington, KY, San Francisco, CA, and Springfield, MA before founding what became known as Central United Church of Christ in 1953. Whereas, during the civil-rights and ``black power'' movements of the 1960s the then Reverend Cleage was Detroit's most eloquent and uncompromising advocate and activist for African American freedom, rights, and dignity. He led campaigns for quality education and black economic empowerment and spearheaded opposition to job discrimination, police brutality and the forced removal of blacks from the central city. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman later co-founded the Black Slate, a not- for-profit public relations and advertising group that selects and supports candidates for public office, which helped to elect Coleman A. Young as Detroit's first African American mayor. Whereas, on Easter Sunday in 1967, he launched the Black Christian Nationalist Movement (BCN) and unveiled a 19-foot chancel mural of a Black Madonna and child by Detroit artist Glanton Dowdell. In 1970, Central formally became the Shrine of the Black Madonna and the Reverend Cleage was rechristened Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman. At this point he focused his energy inward, toward building institutions and developing a theology and program that would enable black people to become independent and self-determining. Whereas, Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman wrote two books, ``The Black Messiah'' (1968) and ``Black Christian Nationalism: New Directions for the Black Church'' (1972). In 1978, he founded the PAOCC as a new black denomination, with branches in Atlanta, GA, Houston, TX, and Calhoun Falls, SC where the church established Beulah Land, which is believed to be the largest black owned farm in the U.S. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman passed away at Beulah Land on February 20, 2000. In special tribute, this document is dedicated in memory of the life of Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the pull-out of the U.S. of the WTO. This is a global economy that we live in. We have got to be at the table to work with the companies and work with the countries that are taking our jobs, and I believe the pull-out is the wrong thing to do. Should it be strengthened? Yes, it should and the administration should reject all principles that would make our trade laws weaker. If we talk about intellectual property rights, we need to enforce those that are in there. And the Bush administration and our U.S. administration, regardless of who sits in that White House, must make sure that those property rights are enforced internationally, and that is what the WTO should be about. In 1995 when the WTO was established, I thought then and I do hope now that dispute resolution procedures would be those where we could come to the table to resolve some of those disputes. The dispute process has become too cumbersome, too lengthy; and many times we find our companies, U.S. companies, not taking advantage and being very much put out of business. The steel industries in my district, too much dumping from some other countries into America. We ought to rectify that so that U.S. companies can take U.S. companies and that we be able to employ our citizens. Too many dislocated workers, the only way to address this is to stay in the WTO to work with the other countries. And our administration must see that our rules, our trade laws, our employees' rights are saved. We want to upgrade and lift up other countries, but we must save America. America is in crisis. Our workers, too many have lost their jobs and many more to come. I represent General Motors, and this week they announced the closing of more plants, dislocating more workers and at the same time put $2 billion in China last year. So I say stay in the WTO; make it better. This is a world economy, and the U.S. is the most powerful. I would hope that as we move forward in this discussion, and I know the vote will be overwhelming that we stay, that we build it and that we make sure that the countries that are taking our jobs have a responsibility to the workers of this country. However Members intend to vote on the resolution before us, the issue of trade remedies under the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is of paramount concern to the industries of my district in the years ahead. How we address this issue will be an important factor in determining whether we can retain support for open markets and the international trading system as we know it. Countries like China, Japan, and India that have most consistently dumped in this market and violated international rules are pushed hard to have those disciplines eviscerated. That would be a disaster for U.S. manufacturers, agricultural producers and workers. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws have already been critically weakened as a result of groundless WTO dispute resolution decisions. If we see yet another new trade agreement that limits the use of these laws, I am afraid they will become completely ineffective. Our trading partners, in the name of free trade, have been effective in putting forward a number of specific proposals that are designed to weaken U.S. trade laws. Congress is on record as opposing these efforts and I welcome this opportunity to advocate that our top priority should be to preserve core trade disciplines. However, our trade negotiators have not offered meaningful proposals to challenge those who would weaken our trade remedy laws. This is a recipe for failure. If the Administration comes back with an agreement that waters down our trade remedy laws even further, I am confident we will see a strong backlash in Congress--and a major effect on support for any new trade agreements. Support for the WTO cannot be taken for granted in Congress or in this country if we cannot maintain the assurance that unfair trade can and will be remedied. I urge the Administration to focus on this issue and to reject any WTO deal that would weaken U.S. trade remedy laws. Otherwise, we may well see the next WTO vote have a very different outcome than is likely today.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. It saves lives, it prolongs life, and it helps unhealthy people remain existent on this earth. I am a diabetic myself, and for the last decade I have been working with stem cell research in my own district. The Karmanos Cancer Institute, world renowned in our community and in Michigan, and part of the former Detroit Medical Center, is a leader in research. This bill deals with cord research, umbilical cord research, not controversial. Medical professionals and others support umbilical cord research. Umbilical cord research is the cord that is separated after a woman delivers her child. In many instances, 90 percent of the time, those cords are displaced and thrown away. What this bill will help us do is first of all gather those cords across America to save lives, to renew organs, and to continue life as we know it. So I rise in support of H.R. 2520 as another means for us to prolong life, to give life, from stem cords, umbilical cords of women that are heretofore thrown out. In our community, we are educating women and asking for their permission that medical research is able to use the cords, the umbilical cords of the fetus. It is new, it is exciting, and it is happening all over the world. Our country is first in medical science; and this act that we are taking today will continue research and development, healthier lives and longer lives. Support H.R. 2520 and let us bring America up so that we can save lives, prolong lives, and build a real strong America. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the ``Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act''. This bill creates a new federal program to collect and store umbilical cord blood stem cells and reauthorize and expands the current bone marrow registry program. Umbilical cord blood units, typically discarded at hospitals, can be an unlimited source of stem cells with representation of all races and ethnicities. According to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), African- Americans have only a 30 percent chance of finding a stem cell match within their own families and often require healthy stem cells from an unrelated individual, typically another African American. Of the NMDP's registry of donors, only 8 percent are from African-Americans. I support the use of embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and cord blood research to find cures. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and H.R. 810 ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act'' introduced by Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette that would lift Bush's 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using any mew embryonic stem cell lines. All avenues of stem cell research need to be explored. The current embryonic stem cell policy must be changed. We can no longer tie the hands of our scientists and researchers when millions of lives are at stake.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, May 17, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 174, on ordering the previous question; ``no'' on rollcall No. 175, H. Res. 278, a resolution providing a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 176, an amendment offered by Rep. Robert Menendez of New Jersey; ``no'' on rollcall No. 177, an amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 178, an amendment offered by Mr. Meeks of New York; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 179, an amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin; and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 180, final passage of H.R. 2360, The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, May 16, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 627, designating the ``Linda White-Epps'' Post Office in Hamden, CT (rollcall No. 171); ``yea'' on H. Res. 266, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day (rollcall No. 172); and ``yea'' on H.R. 2107, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and Maintenance Fund Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 173).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit for winning the 2004 Foster G. McGaw Prize for Excellence in Community Service--one of the health care field's most prestigious awards. Henry Ford was awarded this award May 2, 2005 at the American Hospital Association's Annual conference. The Foster G. McGaw prize recognizes health care organizations that demonstrate commitment to community service through a variety of programs. These programs must exhibit a continuous dedication to making communities healthier. Each year, the $100,000 award is given to an organization committed to providing its community with innovative programs and services that promote the health and well being of the community. The American Hospital Association, the Baxter International Foundation and the Cardinal Health Foundation sponsored the award. Henry Ford Health System's outstanding community programs are improving the health and quality of life of the people they serve, primarily Southeast Michigan's minority and disadvantaged residents. Henry Ford Health System was recognized for its involvement in: The School-Based Health Initiative, which takes primary and preventive care to Detroit classrooms where it may be the only health care a child receives. The Henry Ford sites handle nearly 20,000 student visits each year. AIM-HI--African American Initiative for Male Health Improvement, a program within the Institute on Multicultural Health at Henry Ford, that provides mobile health screenings and onsite health education for diabetes, hypertension, and strokes. SandCastles, a division of the Hospices of Henry Ford Health System, which offers grief support for children and families who have lost a loved one. In 2004, this program served 378 children and 274 adults from 228 families. City Year Detroit, a program that is supported financially and housed by Henry Ford Health System. In this program, outstanding young adults make a 10-month, full-time volunteer service commitment to help youth in Detroit's lowest-income neighborhoods. Automobile pioneer Henry Ford founded the hospital in 1915 to improve the health of metro Detroit residents. Since that time, the health system has been devoted to patient safety, clinical excellence and superior service. The health system partners with dozens of local agencies and organizations to serve more than one million residents in southeast Michigan. Again, Mr. Speaker I want to commend the Henry Ford Health System and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Nancy Schlichting for a job well done. What an honor for the Henry Ford Health System and the city of Detroit. Their commitment to quality health care and the community is to be applauded.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval, I still find myself torn because I do not see how additional funding for the Iraq War effort will ultimately produce a positive outcome for the United States or for the people in Iraq. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq. Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, or lack thereof, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership at the White House and the Pentagon. As we speak, our ground forces scrounge for scrap metal to make the unarmored vehicles more safe against insurgent attack. The funds provided in this bill will enable our soldiers and Marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there. It is vital that our troops receive the equipment they need to defend themselves against attack. I have been critical of our war planning from the outset. I voted against the authority that allowed the President to take action in Iraq. I continue to be frustrated that our war plan still contains no game plan on when we can begin to bring our troops home. I am pleased that the bill does contain provisions that require the administration to develop a set of performance indicators and measures for determining the stability and security in Iraq and report its findings to Congress. This requirement falls well short of the exit strategy we need to determine how long our commitment in Iraq will last. The bill also funds tsunami relief, which is well overdue. The agreement appropriates $656 million in direct assistance to tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by last December's tragedy. The total includes $5 million to support environmental recovery activities; $10 million to create new economic opportunities for women; and $12.5 million to support initiatives that focus on the immediate and long- term needs of children. The bill provides $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, including funds for the temporary resettlement of refugees. It also funds $240 million for international humanitarian food assistance through the Food for Peace Program, much of which will go to the Darfur region. This assistance will provide some relief to those who are being victimized by the ethnic cleansing that is being waged against the black Muslim population by the Arab Muslim-dominated Sudanese government. In a period when the President and this Congress proposes reductions in programs that support the development of local communities and neighborhoods, the bill provides $592 million for a gold-plated embassy compound in Iraq. I find it very difficult to defend such spending when the budget priorities of this administration propose disinvesting in our cities, towns and our American workforce. Money for this project goes beyond providing office and working space for U.S. foreign service personnel. What we are proposing to build is not an embassy, but a compound, with stores and other amenities which will further distance our American embassy personnel from the Iraqi civilian and political population. We are constructing a fortress, not an embassy. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq. Another key element of this agreement with which I take issue is the mandate imposed on states that requires certain identification standards on driver's licenses for federal identification purposes. The measure mandates that states meet certain requirements for determining the validity of persons applying for drivers' licenses. Although the bill provides authority for states to receive federal grants to comply, it is insufficient and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate. The money contained in this bill will go a long way to saving lives, saving the lives of our land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and reconstructing the lives of those who experienced the devastation of last year's tsunami. After weighing the alternatives, I reluctantly support the passage of this bill. I am not happy with the choices we are making today. I feel backed into a corner without much wiggle room, but the lives of our troops matter to me and they deserve the protection this bill is designed to deliver to them.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. I rise in opposition to the resolution. It is punitive to low-income families. The conference agreement proposes cuts totaling $10 billion in Medicaid. It also calls for significant cuts in domestic programs. In addition to cuts in Medicaid services, the resolution also calls for cuts in education, including student loans, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and large tax cuts. At a time when we need to add jobs to the economy, the budget agreement cuts back on funding for adult and vocational education. Finally, the budget resolution conference report requires drastic increases in the premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). These premium increases will drive many employers to exit the defined benefit pension system, thereby undermining the retirement security for millions of workers and retirees and ultimately weakening the PBGC. The tax cuts called for in the resolution total $100 billion over five years, but will balloon to $1.4 trillion when stretched out over a 10-year period through 2015. Despite all the domestic program cuts, the tax cuts will make the budget deficit picture worse, not better. The $2.56 trillion budget agreement cuts domestic spending below Fiscal Year 2005 levels. It does this without making any progress on reducing record level budget deficits. Supporters of the budget resolution, spin this document as a vehicle for bringing the budget deficit into check, but do not be persuaded by that argument. The Republican leadership have made the same argument in the last three budget cycles and look at their performance: more record budget deficits. It took this country 204 years to run up a public debt of $1 trillion. Under this administration, under this Republican Congress, we are adding $l trillion to the public debt every 18 months. Over the last four years, we have added $2.2 trillion to the national debt. What concerns me most about this budget is that it signals the call of retreat. It is a blue print for disinvesting in the programs that make our economy and our people competitive in the global marketplace. We cannot build a stronger economy and create good paying jobs if we cut programs for worker education and job training--critical programs that invest in our human capital resources--the future American workforce. This budget does not represent the values of my district, nor does it represent the priorities of the American people. Is there any wonder that poll after poll has registered declining public confidence in the direction of our economy and the nation's spending priorities. The real test of this budget resolution will come when we attempt to pass the 10 appropriations bills later this year. I predict a tough time ahead because it will be difficult to obtain the consensus needed to pass the spending bills that will keep the government running. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The National Traffic Safety Administration is the body who sets those standards. There are standards. They scientifically set those standards. And sometimes they raise them. It is important that we keep that responsibility with NTSA who does a fine job with that, to set maximum feasible levels for the standards cars and trucks must use. I want to read from a good friend here who says, ``Such a proposal would dramatically affect the functionality and performance of vans, pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles that consumers in America want.'' And that is by the United States Chamber of Commerce. One in 10 jobs are related to the auto industry. Fuel economy standards are set scientifically, and this body should not get into that. We have standards. The American people choose the cars and trucks they want to drive. I believe that the standards are set fine. And as we go on, the millions of dollars that the industry has put into new development, new cars that are energy efficient we will see as time goes on. Americans are working and we are winning. Leave the standards to NHTSA.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We rise to make this a better amendment. If we want EPA to do the testing, to make sure that things are right and labeling is correct, then we want to make sure that there is one test to do that. What we do not want to do is put additional funds, additional costs, additional measures on the auto industry that is already very fragile. So we rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment and ask that our amendment be considered because the testing is there. We do not need to have two tests, as is required by the Johnson amendment. It doubles the cost for product, and it allows the competition to be more advanced in our competition war than we are now considering. The auto industry in America is fragile. We all know that they have invested millions of dollars in their products to make them better, make them fuel efficient, do alternative energy sources. We believe that our amendment is a perfecting one; and, yes, it requires that the EPA do the proper tests, not two times but the one time that is required and that the labeling be accurate. We hope that our colleagues will support this Rogers-Kilpatrick amendment. It is a much better amendment, and again works with EPA to make sure that the labeling is correct with the one test. Consumers deserve to know that the sticker in their window actually reflects the mileage they will get on the road. The EPA should revisit their fuel economy standards and the Rogers/ Kilpatrick amendment would require the EPA to change the adjustment factors that it currently uses to make the fuel economy label accurate. Nancy Johnson's amendment requires the EPA to change the ``testing procedures'' that auto companies use to determine the fuel economy numbers that go on the dealer label. Her amendment would require two test auto companies to do one test for labeling and a separate test for CAFE. Johnson's language doubles the cost to the companies. The Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment deals with the need for improved dealer label accuracy while only requiring one test. Instead of requiring EPA to change the ``testing procedures'' the Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment requires the EPA to change the ``adjustment factors'' that EPA currently uses to make the fuel economy label accurate. This simple change prevents the auto companies from having to run two separate tests. Rather the auto companies can run one test that could be used and adjusted with appropriate factors to provide a more accurate fuel economy number. The Rogers/Kilpatrick perfecting amendment to the Johnson amendment achieves precisely the same goal that the Johnson amendment strives to achieve: accurate fuel economy labels on new cars. The only difference is that the Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment achieves this goal by having EPA revise the current test, instead of compelling EPA to conduct two separate tests. The Rogers/Kilpatrick perfecting amendment makes clear that the objective is to change the fuel economy label values--NOT the test procedures. This will ensure that this measure will improve consumer information regarding mileage without imposing an increase in the stringency of CAFE or creating a second fuel economy test for consumer labeling. The Johnson amendment COULD threaten to increase the stringency of CAFE. The Johnson amendment would require EPA to change fuel economy testing for label purposes. If the intent of this change is to create a new test for fuel economy labeling then the burden on automakers to test vehicles for both CAFE and fuel economy labeling would increase substantially. If, however, the intention is to retain only one vehicle fuel economy test, then the test protocol currently used for determining CAFE values will also be affected--lowering the fleet fuel economy averages of manufacturers and making compliance with the CAFE standards more stringent. Depending upon the test procedure changes implemented, the stringency of the CAFE standards could increase by 10-20% (or up to a 6 mpg increase in the stringency of the CAFE requirements).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256, this bankruptcy bill, because it does nothing to protect the victims of identity theft.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Action. The title of this bill is a misnomer. It should be titled the ``Corporate Protection and Improved Profitability Act''. If passed, this Act will be a boon for credit card and financial lending institutions and a nightmare for American families who are struggling to stay strong in an economically depressed society. Essentially, the House is contemplating legislation that is more punitive to individuals seeking bankruptcy protection than corporations that resort to filing for bankruptcy. I also have concerns about House procedures for S. 256. A closed rule was employed, resulting in thirty-five Democratic amendments being rejected from consideration. Debate on an amendment to the bill was prevented. Thirty-five amendments were submitted before the Rules Committee and not one was accepted. Not only were members of the House prevented from engaging in debate but also the American people have been denied the opportunity to hear legitimate debate regarding this Act we are considering today. I am especially distressed about the majority's refusal to accept amendments that related to identify theft and exemptions for disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs after active duty. My review of S. 256 compels me to conclude that the framers of the bill failed or refused to recognize that recent economic policies by the current administration have directly contributed to the proliferation of bankruptcy filings by consumers. Burgeoning deficits, perpetual and high unemployment, and the exportation of jobs overseas are just a few of the by-products of failed and poorly conceived government policies that have contributed and continue to contribute to the need for individuals to seek bankruptcy protection. I also oppose S. 256 because it does absolutely nothing to stem the predatory practices employed by credit card companies, or the abusive fees and penalties imposed on individuals who make just one late payment. Further, the wealthiest citizens in our country are able to insulate their assets by placing them in trusts that are protected in bankruptcy proceedings. I staunchly oppose S. 256. Democrats were denied the opportunity to offer amendments, the American people have been denied a full opportunity to determine the full implications of the changes in bankruptcy law, and the Act is fundamentally anticonsumer. Mr. Speaker, my conscience dictates that I oppose S. 256. I encourage my House colleague to vote No on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. Mrs. DAVIS California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the bankruptcy reform legislation before us today. Unfortunately, there are individuals who abuse the credit system and use it for their own gain. This is wrong and we should be working to stop those who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws. However, I worry S. 256 will hurt the thousands of Americans who have absolutely no choice but to file bankruptcy as a last resort. Specifically, I am concerned about the impact on our brave service members and our military families. The numerous activations and extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are causing our military families to face debt and serious financial strain. Studies show that the incomes of military, families decrease significantly when the service member is deployed. Four out of 10 Reservists, for example, take a drop in pay once they are deployed overseas. I have met with military families in San Diego who are facing the realities and the financial strain that come with activation. I worry about the military spouse whose husband is activated to serve in Iraq for a year and must leave his job or his business. Somehow, we expect the spouse to care her children, to make the house payment, and to pay the bills on an income that is significantly lower. Some military families will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy because of the environment we have created for them. The bankruptcy reform bill before us today does not address the needs of our military families and the realities they are facing. S. 256 will make it harder for military families to recover from a bankruptcy because of the additional costs and the stricter requirements. The Senate did include provisions exempting military personnel serving in combat from certain provisions of the bill. But, unfortunately, the financial impact of an extended deployment could remain long after the service member returns home to his family. S. 256 does not recognize this reality and does not consider the difficult circumstances facing military families today. I am against passing legislation only adding to the enormous burden we are already placing on those defending the United States and the families sending a loved one into harm's way. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, had I been present this evening, I would have voted ``no'' on S. 686.