Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons prevent me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 14, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.J. Res. 97, legislation renewing the import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (rollcall No. 232); ``yea'' on H. Res. 669, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need to provide prostrate cancer patients with meaningful access to information on treatment options (rollcall No. 233); ``yea'' H.R. 4323, providing the Secretary of Defense with rapid acquisition authority in times of combat emergencies (rollcall No. 234); and ``yea'' on H. Res. 653, a resolution honoring former President George Herbert Walker Bush on the occasion of his 80th birthday (rollcall No. 235).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons prevented me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, June 8, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 663, a privileged bereavement resolution for former President Ronald W. Reagan (Rollcall vote No. 229), and ``aye'' on approving the Journal (Rollcall vote No. 230).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the seniors of America deserve better. This Republican House and Republican Senate, as well as the President, have passed a Medicare bill at 3 in the morning that is a sham on seniors. Our seniors need and want lower prescription prices. This bill did nothing to lower prices. Medicare negotiates for lower prices for the bulk of the 40 million Americans who need assistance. This bill does not allow our seniors to go to Canada, where medicines cost two-thirds less than what they are in America. Finally, there is the discount card that is not a discount. Seniors, if you have a discount from a pension plan from yourself or your husband, it is going to be better than this one. Use it. Mr. Speaker, this is a sham on our seniors. Our seniors deserve more. They built our country. Let us do better. Help them get their medicines. They need them to survive.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Con. Res. 295 introduced by Congressman John Conyers. This resolution congratulates and salutes Focus: HOPE on its 35th anniversary and for its remarkable commitment and contributions to the City of Detroit, the State of Michigan, and the United States. FOCUS: HOPE was founded in 1968 by Father William Cunningham and Eleanor M. Josaitis in response to the Detroit riots that left the city in turmoil. It is a nationally recognized civil and human rights organization in Detroit, Michigan and is one of the largest nonprofit organizations in Michigan. Since its beginning, Focus: HOPE has been committed to fighting racism, poverty, and injustice. In 1968, in response to a study by the Detroit Free Press and the Urban League, Focus: HOPE organized a search for evidence of widespread discrimination in food and prescription drug prices. From the investigation, the HOPE '68 study was published. The study was the first to offer definitive proof of systematic discrimination in food pricing. In 1971, after gathering scientific evidence of the effects of hunger and malnutrition on the critical early development of infants, Focus: HOPE developed a supplemental food program for children up to age six, and for pregnant and post-partum women. The program, later expanded to include senior citizens, was the first and remains one of the largest Commodity Supplemental Food Programs in the country, with food provided through the Department of Agriculture to 43,000 women, children and senior citizens each month throughout Southeast Michigan. In addition to addressing the societal needs of the community, in 1981, the organization opened its Machinist Training Institute (MTI), to provide skills development in precision machining and metalworking. The institute has graduated more than 2,300 machinists. Focus: HOPE created two pioneering programs--FAST TRACK and First Step--designed to help individuals improve their reading and math competencies by a minimum of two grade levels in 4-7 weeks. The organization also opened a Center for Children, which has now served over 5,000 children of colleagues, students, and neighbors with quality childcare and early childhood education. Focus: HOPE has also partnered with many businesses and schools through the years. In 1993 Focus: HOPE developed the Center for Advanced Technologies to address the shortage of manufacturing engineers with hands-on skills. The organization formed a coalition with three university partners: Lawrence Technological University, Wayne State University and the University of Detroit Mercy and several corporations to design a curriculum for manufacturing engineering education. The volunteer effort of Focus: HOPE brings together thousands of people each year to operate various programs including preparing boxes of food that are delivered to low-income families during the holidays, neighborhood cleanup and revitalization projects and programs that concentrate on education, the arts, manufacturing, engineering, and information technology training. Last year in October, I joined Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm and Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow for Focus: HOPE's Walk 2003. This annual walk through the streets of Detroit, to celebrate our rich diversity, is patterned after the nonviolent marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Approximately 8,000 people from metropolitan Detroit walked an eight-mile route through Highland Park and Detroit. The route includes the area where the 1967 riots broke out, the first Ford Motor Company automotive production facility, and the original Motown recording studios. Again, I would like to thank the late Father Cunningham and Eleanor M. Josaitis for their vision. Focus: HOPE has helped thousands of people fulfill their purpose in life. Focus: HOPE's commitment to bringing together people of all races, faiths, and economic backgrounds to overcome injustice and build racial harmony is an inspiration for us all. I also thank the leadership for allowing this resolution to be included on today's suspension calendar.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this resolution honoring the Tuskegee Airmen. It is only fitting after coming off a Memorial Day weekend where we celebrated and remembered those who served our country in World War II that we pay tribute to the contributions the Tuskegee Airmen made to the Allied victory. They did more than just help win the war. The Tuskegee Airmen had a major impact on the U.S. armed services, in general, and our air force in particular. The men of Tuskegee overcame prejudice, racism and bigotry in order to serve their country. In many quarters, they were not wanted. Tuskegee trainees were expelled from the flight-training program for the slightest reasons, but they would not be denied the opportunity to do their duty for their country. They were determined to overcome tremendous obstacles because they had to exceed standards established for regular recruits. From them, more was expected, and to the benefit of our country, more was given. The Tuskegee pilots who survived a rigorous training program were an elite and highly motivated group. The Tuskegee Airmen were organized in 1941 when plans were approved to establish a segregated air unit, the 99th Pursuit Squadron, and base it near Tuskegee, Alabama. They provided close air support and bomber escort missions and saw action in Italy, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the bombing of Berlin. In World War II, the Tuskegee Airmen compiled a record of shooting down 111 enemy aircraft and destroyed another 150 aircraft on the ground. They destroyed transport railroads, sank a Germany destroyer and 40 other boats and barges. Some 450 pilots flew combat missions. They flew 200 bomber escort missions against some of the most heavily defended targets in Hitler's Germany and never lost a bomber to the German Luftwaffe. They played a vital role in defending our country against the Axis powers and just as importantly played a major part in breaking down racial barriers in the military and American society as a whole. They served in the most technically advanced and sophisticated branch of America's fighting forces, the Army Air Corps. When they earned their wings they engaged in one of the advanced air forces in the world, the Luftwaffe. And in doing so, they and we emerged victorious. Being privileged to represent a good part of the City of Detroit, I am proud to say Detroit hosts the National Museum of the Tuskegee Airmen. Among the Tuskegee alumni was our own former Mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young. It was in Detroit that the Tuskegee Airmen, Incorporated was founded. This organization exists to motivate and inspire young Americans to pursue careers in aviation, aerospace, the military and to become active participants in civic affairs. We in Detroit have a close affinity with the Tuskegee Airmen, and I thank the leadership for allowing this resolution to be scheduled for today.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill we are considering today. A major issue of concern is the additional $25 billion authorized for military operations in Iraq gives the Pentagon a blank check to spend the money as it sees fit. The Secretary of Defense wants unfettered flexibility in the disposition of these funds free from Congressional oversight. As Bob Woodward's book details, the administration cannot be trusted to seek Congressional approval to reprogram resources. The administration secretly moved approximately $200 million out of Afghanistan operations into Iraq war planning in 2002 without the approval of Congress. There must be more Congressional oversight in this $422 billion bill. Additionally, I am, frankly, disappointed in the work of the House Armed Services Committee to address several key issues, especially the lack of attention given to the problem of sexual assault and abuse within military circles. I appreciate the efforts of Representatives Skelton and Slaughter to make improvements in this area, but I think we could have done better. This measure allows the Pentagon to continue to do business as usual. I find that unacceptable; therefore, I cast my vote against this measure. I am hopeful that a better bill will emerge from conference when the House meets with the other body to iron out a compromise agreement.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons prevent me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, May 17, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 420, a resolution applauding the men and women who keep America moving and recognizing National Transportation Week (Rollcall No. 177); ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 423, a resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for activities associated with the dedication of the National World War II Memorial (Rollcall No. 178); and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 403, a resolution condemning the Government of the Republic of the Sudan for its attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan (Rollcall No. 179).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mildred ``Millie'' Jeffrey, a strong leader, community activist and protector of our United States Constitution. Millie passed away on Wednesday, March 24, 2004. Through seven decades of social activism, Millie Jeffrey demonstrated how one individual can influence the battle for social justice by empowering victims of exploitation and discrimination to fight for equality and opportunity. Millie was on the Board of Governors at Wayne State University, and she was the Director of the United Auto Workers (UAW) Consumer Affairs Department. Millie served with dedication and brought to her endeavors a brimming optimism. Millie was a mentor for legions of women and men in the labor, civil rights, women's rights, and peace movements. She is most remembered for her humor, passion for life, and her goodwill that will be remembered for generations to come. Millie once said; ``You never win freedom permanently. You have to win it time after time; whether it's union rights, civil rights, or equality for women.'' In the words of Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm, ``The greatest honor we can pay her, is to recommit to working for fairness and justice for all of our citizens today and everyday.'' Everyone knew that if they wanted to hear true wisdom one would have to talk to Millie. She helped pave the way for women in politics everywhere. With her long list of accomplishments and accolades she became an icon of modern politics. On August 9, 2000 President Clinton awarded Millie the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the United States Government, for her selfless acts for peace. When awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, President Bill Clinton said, ``She may be small in stature and humble in manner, but she is very strong. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work of ``Millie'' Jeffrey and express my deepest condolences to her family and to all who knew, loved, and were touched by her life.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I find myself opposing this resolution. I do so because it is only a half way measure that attempts to gloss over the scope of the problem regarding the treatment of prisoners and detainees in Iraq. First of all the resolution is limited to only the situation in Iraq when we are given to understand that the problem extends to the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay. Second, the resolution fails to call on the administration to provide assurances that it will treat all classes of detainees, prisoners and enemy combatants to the standards established by the Geneva Convention. Third, it does not call on the leadership of this Congress to embark on an investigation of these ``abhorrent'' acts, as President Bush described this very sad episode that has left an indelible impression throughout the Arab world. Fourth, the resolution seems to limit accountability to those in our Armed Services, principally the enlisted ranks of our Army, and exculpates those higher-level officers and civilian authorities within the chain of command. Fifth, the resolution says nothing about investigating civilian, private military firms (PMFs) who are working under contract with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA has relied on PMFs to perform security functions that are normally performed by U.S. military personnel, including logistical support, interrogation of prisoners, convoy security, guarding vital facilities and personnel, and more. Sixth, the resolution fails to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accountable. The day the story broke about the abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison Secretary Rumsfeld was briefing the Senate and made no mention of the problem. I find myself in agreement with Sen. John McCain of Arizona that there is a lack of communication between the administration and the Congress when it comes to the issue of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for that lack of communication and this resolution is evidence enough that the leadership of this Congress is covering for him. I join with others in calling for the Secretary's resignation. The Washington Post is right on target when it said: ``The Pentagon ruled that the United States would no longer be bound by the Geneva Convention, that Army regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado and without any independent mechanism of review.'' This administration has mastered the art of deniability. No one has been held accountable. It is time we hold the Secretary of Defense to account and ask for his resignation. For these reasons, I cast my vote in opposition to this resolution.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 4227, the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Relief Act. I have considered the merits of the legislation and concluded that the base bill offered by the Republican majority needed to be amended. I voted aye to the Neal-Bishop-Israel substitute, that would have exempted married couples making $250,000, and singles making $125,000, from paying the alternative minimum tax. The substitute would have been offset by cracking down on corporate tax shelters and tax avoidance schemes used by corporations like Enron. The current budget deficit has been fueled by unprecedented tax cuts that have erased a surplus in excess of $200 billion when the Bush administration took office. Given the loss of 2.6 million private-sector jobs over the last three years, I and my fellow Democrats believe tax cuts should not add to the record budget deficits, because ballooning deficits threaten economic growth, raise interest rates, and cost jobs. That is why the Democratic alternative targeted tax cuts--providing more tax relief to the millions of families with children in high-tax states with incomes under $250,000. I was also concerned by facts provided by Ways and Means staff that indicated the base bill is expected to reduce federal revenue by approximately $17 billion to $18 billion over 10 years, and none of the provisions in the bill were accompanied by any offsets. The substitute provided the framework for total reform of the AMT. It would have been paid for, and would have provided AMT relief that is broader and simpler than the relief contained in H.R. 4227. The substitute eliminated AMT liability for all taxpayers whose income is less than $125,000 for single taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples. Above those income levels, AMT liabilities would be phased in over a $20,000 range for single taxpayers and a $40,000 range for married couples. The cost of the substitute was roughly $19 billion and would have been offset by restrictions on tax shelters that have been supported by House Democrats as offsets in other substitutes that have been approved in the Senate on a bipartisan basis. I opposed H.R. 4227 because it did not provide a sufficient level of tax relief to my constituents. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4227, the ``Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004,'' and in support of the Democratic substitute that provides real relief for middle-class families. The alternative minimum tax, AMT, was designed to ensure high-income taxpayers did not thwart the system and avoid their share of the tax burden. But once again, the Republicans are on the floor with a tax proposal favoring the wealthy over the middle class, penalizing hard working Americans raising families. We should not mortgage our future with tax policies that will merely pass on the ever-increasing debt to our children. Despite its title, the Republicans are offering a bill that does not provide effective AMT relief for lower-income households and those families claiming the dependent care credit. In addition, the irresponsible AMT relief proposed by the Republicans is not paid for with any offsetting revenue increases or spending cuts. In contrast, the Democratic substitute provides AMT relief to more households than the Republican bill and gives increased relief to low- income households--especially those claiming the dependent care credit. This tax relief for real middle-class families is paid for with new restrictions on corporate tax shelters. The Republicans call this a tax hike, but it is actually the most responsible way to provide effective middle-class tax relief without adding to the national debt. The Democratic substitute provides AMT relief to 10.2 million households, a full 1 million more than the GOP proposal. Married households below $250,000 adjusted gross income will be completely excluded from the AMT under the Democratic substitute, while the Republican bill gives big breaks to those over $250,000 who obviously need tax relief the least--and have already most benefited from the Bush tax cuts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the inadequate Republican proposal and support the Democratic substitute, which provides AMT relief for American families who need it most.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons prevent me from being present for legislative business scheduled after 3 p.m. today, Wednesday, May 5, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to instruct conferees on S. Con. Res. 95 (rollcall No. 145); and ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 605, a resolution recognizing the importance of increasing awareness of autism (rollcall No. 146).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Wednesday, April 28, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 4219, legislation extending authorization of the surface transportation bill (rollcall No. 134); ``aye'' on S. 1904, to redesignate a courthouse located in Miami, FL, as the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse (rollcall No. 135); ``aye'' on the Rangel Amendment to H.R. 4181 (rollcall No. 136); ``aye'' on the motion to recommit the bill, H.R. 4181 (rollcall No. 137); and ``no'' on the question of final passage of H.R. 4181 (rollcall No. 138).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Amos Crooms, Jr., who passed away February 15, 2004. Mr. Crooms spent most of his adult life in public service and his selfless dedication is an inspiration for us all. He enlisted in the Navy in 1959 and was assigned to the USS Topeka when it was deployed to respond to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. After Mr. Crooms' honorable discharge from the Navy in 1963 he returned to Detroit and joined the Detroit Police Department in 1967. He served on the front line of law enforcement by working in the newly created mini-stations on narcotics, undercover operations, and recruiting. As one of Detroit's finest, he received many citations for his 26 years of service. Mr. Crooms' dedication to public service has inspired many of his family members and friends to pursue careers in public service. His devotion to his country, family, and the city of Detroit will be remembered, and the city is a better place for his contributions to the community. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the life and work of Mr. Amos Crooms, Jr, and express my deepest condolences to his family and to all who knew and loved him.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in continuing the provision to buy America. We are in a downturn in our country. Many manufacturing jobs have been lost. This Congress has always supported Buy America in earlier years and in times past. We hope they will come together today to support our amendment. It is important that we make sure, and a previous speaker said that we may not get the best price. We believe that American workers will have the best price, will have the best manufactured goods and that in this $275 billion bill, much of it should be spent with American manufacturers. I was just visited by a group of bus manufacturers in my office just last week. They were complaining about how much business they are losing and how many jobs they are losing. I think it is imperative that we adopt the LaTourette-Kilpatrick amendment. Buy America keeps Americans working, keeps families together and additionally offers revenues for cities across America. I would hope that we would support the LaTourette-Kilpatrick amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business, I was unable to record my vote on the two votes ordered for today. If I had been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2584 regarding the Conveyance of NOAA Ship to the Utrok Atoll (rollcall No. 94), and ``yea'' on H.R. 3723, the Vaughn Gross Post Office (rollcall No. 95).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus alternatives. You would think that after 3 years of Bush budgets and Bush tax cuts, there is enough evidence to suggest that the people who benefited from 3 years of tax cuts are not producing jobs for the rest of working America. The sponsors of the Republican budget resolution look at economic growth and ignore stagnant job creation. That is why they try to convince working Americans to stay the course. In the last 3 years, similar budgets have cost the economy 3 million jobs. Unemployment in my State of Michigan stands at 6.6 percent, the second largest number of unemployed citizens in the country. Unemployment among African-Americans stands at 9.8 percent. Only 21,000 jobs were created in February, and not one was created by the private sector. If the economy continues to perform at last month's rate, it would take 9 years to recover all the jobs lost in the last three Bush budgets. This record would earn him the distinction of having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. The Republican budget resolution does nothing about deficits. It produces deficits each and every year of the life of the resolution and beyond. The Republican budget provides no blueprint to bring the budget into balance, and this document refuses to show how large the deficits will be in the out years beyond 2009. Three years ago, the President told us we would see a $5.6 trillion surplus. He used that projection to justify $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. Now the surpluses have disappeared and if you project out 10 years to 2014, the deficits generated are estimated at $5.5 trillion. That is a swing of $10 trillion in tax cuts. Now the surplus have disappeared and if you project out 10 years to 2014, the deficits generated are estimated at $5.5 trillion. That is a swing of $10 trillion. If tax cuts are appropriate when we have surpluses, why are they appropriate when we have record deficits? Three years ago, the Republican majority talked about putting Social Security and Medicare funds in a lock box. Now they are planning to spend the entire trillion dollar Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009. The price we are paying for the Bush tax cuts is ultimately the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare as we know it. With respect to education, the Republican budget underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8.8 billion, continuing the pattern of underfunding education programs. With 3.8 million women looking for work, the Republican budget does nothing to create good paying jobs or improve access to health care. That is the result of 3 years of Bush budgets, and we are promised more of the same. If the Republicans were serious about the deficit, they would come up with a new economic strategy. This Republican budget promises more of the same. If the administration and its allies in Congress were serious about the deficit, they would follow the 1990 PAYGO model to make it impossible to enact any revenue, mandatory spending, or tax expenditure legislation unless there was an offset. But PAYGO in this Congress would apply only to spending, not to revenues. That is not a serious attempt to cut the deficit. If you are satisfied with the job creation record of the last 3 years, then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you are satisfied with the course of the economy, then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you are satisfied with the lack of wage growth, then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you want more of the same, then vote for this Republican budget resolution. But if you want economic growth with job growth, look to the Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you really want to help school districts meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind, vote for the Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want to protect Social Security and Medicare, vote for the Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want to do something for veterans health care, vote for the Democratic and CBC alternatives.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Res. 557, which is intended to praise the efforts of the United States to liberate the people of Iraq, and to commend the efforts of our valiant soldiers who are serving in Iraq. Let me state at the outset, I support our troops and their families who cling to hopes and prayers that our soldiers will not succumb to harm's way and will be home soon. I must offer some sobering words regarding this resolution. I believe that although well intended, the resolution is untimely. It does not contain any input from Democratic members; it does not honor the over 550 soldiers who have died; or the over 11,000 who have been wounded. There is no mention of the fact that no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found. I have concluded that the world is not safer today. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and dictator. A revisiting of the facts leads me to conclude once again though, that Americans and members of Congress were misled by the Administration. The administration acted on flawed CIA intelligence, alleged that Iraq had WMD, and was prepared to use them. The U.N. inspection teams did not uncover any weapons. Their search for WMD was prematurely aborted. Over 550 soldiers have been killed. Over 11,000 soldiers have been wounded. Here at home, the families of our military serving in Iraq, including reservists, are suffering financially and emotionally. They know that this mission was ill-conceived. Another problem is that our troop deployment is thin. Some of them have committed suicide. The administration and the Defense Department have our troops mired in a military holding action. The situation is compounded by the fact that there is no clear exit strategy. As we tout our efforts to promote democracy, it is still clear that we are attempting to export our version of democracy, as opposed to encouraging a form of democracy that will best suit the citizens of Iraq. Iraq has a long history of sectarian strife amongst Shiites, Sunnis and ethnic Kurds. As Americans, we are attempting to export our ideals of democracy. The fact of the matter is, we are still a young democracy. We still have not mastered the process. As Iraqis prepare for the adoption of new constitution, they will still be confronted with the realities of internal sectarian strife that could well undermine our vision and their hopes for democratic rule. Regarding the premise that the world is safer now than when Saddam was in power, the rhetoric fails to square with reality. Al Qaeda, which was purported to be operating in Iraq pre-invasion, was not. Clearly, there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The facts are clear, terrorist activity by Al Qaeda has escalated. We need only look at the bombings in Indonesia, Turkey and most recently in Spain. Does this mean we should cease our efforts against terrorism? Absolutely not! It does mean that we should be much more circumspect in the way we go about fighting terrorism. We must build coalitions to assist us. Finally, let me say our allies around the world continue to chafe at the bully of the world persona that is attached to the United States. We are seeing an increasing erosion of confidence throughout Europe regarding the foreign policies being promoted by this administration. The best way we can honor our troops is to provide them with the equipment they need to be effective. We must provide a clear exit strategy. It is indeed unfortunate that we are considering and debating this resolution which does not adequately honor our troops. I urge the leadership to withdraw this resolution, It is important for Republicans to include our Democratic leaders in the crafting of a new resolution. The new resolution should honor soldiers who have been killed and wounded. It should also contain language that addresses a plan to bring our troops home.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, personal responsibilities required my presence in the 13th Congressional District of Michigan. Should I have been present for today's legislative business, I would have voted ``yea'' on approving the Journal (rollcall No. 25); ``yea'' on approving H.R. 2707, The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act (rollcall No. 26); and ``yea'' on S. 714, the land transfer of Bureau of Land Management property to Douglas County, Oregon (rollcall No. 27).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2673. Had this been the product of the appropriations committees of the two chambers, I would gladly lend my support to the passage of this funding bill. But the meddling of the Republican Leadership and administration that wants what it wants when it wants it made for legislative product that is not worthy of support. When I came to Congress in 1996, I made a commitment to my Michigan constituents to put people first. This bill fails to meet that test. This bill fails that test, and I would like to explain my reasons for opposing its passage. H.R. 2673 excludes a provision to that would prohibit the Department of Labor from issuing a regulation denying overtime pay to more than 8 million workers. The provision to protect the pay of middle-income working Americans was agreed to by a majority of both bodies, and the Republican Leadership removed this provision. The bill shortchanges education. It provides $39 million less for education than what the House originally passed, after subtracting $318 million in earmarked projects added in conference. The bill does not meet the promises of the ``No Child Left Behind Act''--providing $7.8 billion less than was promised. It shortchanges help with the basics of math and reading by $6.2 billion when compared to the level promised in No Child Left Behind, leaving more than 2 million children behind. It also shortchanges funding for after-school centers by $751 million. The measure includes $14 million for a new private school voucher program for the District of Columbia. Private school vouchers drain much-needed funding away from public education where all children can benefit. This funding bill funds state and local law enforcement at $500 million below the level funded last year, even though state and local law enforcement are on the frontlines in keeping our communities safe. The conference agreement abandoned the bipartisan agreement between both chambers of Congress to block the Federal Communications Commission regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand. The FCC issued rules raising the ceiling on media ownership from 35 to 45 percent. Even though House and Senate conferees originally agreed to keeping the current (35 percent) limit, the White House forced a compromise at 39 percent, which would accommodate to giant media interests. The bill funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at just $39 million, a sharp decrease from the fiscal year 2003 level of $106 million. The MEP offers small manufacturers a range of services from plant modernization to employee training. These modernization efforts help our beleaguered small and mid-sized American manufacturers stay competitive. This bill forgets about the unemployed in America. Long-term unemployment in November surpassed a 20-year high. Two million Americans remain out of work and have been out of work for over six months. But the majority in this Chamber is ignoring the calls of the jobless for extending unemployment insurance benefits. Congress will be leaving town this week and after December 21, a half a million workers who are jobless through no fault of their own will lose unemployment benefits. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the passage of this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on this Medicare proposal that takes Medicare from patient care. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to vote against the Medicare Conference Report offered by the Republican leadership. Seniors want a prescription drug benefit that is affordable and guaranteed under the Medicare system. Passage of this bill would weaken prescription drug benefits, fail to lower drug costs, and weaken the Medicare program. Congress needs to pass a good Medicare bill that actually helps seniors and not just any bill that benefits pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, and special interest. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a take it or leave it attitude. They want the American public to believe that if this conference report is not passed then all opportunities for a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare is lost. However, I submit to you that if a true bipartisan effort was made at the conference table, then much could be accomplished. Mr. Speaker, there are dozens of reasons why this conference report should be defeated and never become law. Many of these reasons have already been mentioned but I want to take this time to highlight a few. The three Democratic House conferees were shut out of the process and were not allowed in the conferee meeting. The treatment of these House Members is reasons enough for every member of this body to reject this conference report. The legislation would not create a prescription drug benefit until in 2006. However, HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies receive billions of dollars upon enactment of the conference report. The bill also explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of America's 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. The bill does not allow Americans to import drugs from Canada and other countries where prices are lower. International comparisons of pharmaceutical prices have shown that elderly and uninsured consumers in the United States often pay more for prescription drugs than consumers in other countries. As a result, more and more elderly consumers are traveling outside the country to find cheaper, more affordable prescription drugs. My district borders Windsor, Ontario, Canada, where I have known many of my seniors travel to get their prescriptions filled. The GOP plan includes provisions that will privatize Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs and other private insurance plans. Millions of senior and Americans with disabilities currently covered by Medicare would actually find themselves worse off if the conference report becomes law. Low-income seniors who get additional assistance form Medicaid will pay more for their prescriptions because they will lose their Medicaid benefit. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries who receive medicine through Medicaid either pay no co-payments or are charged nominal amounts per month per prescription. Under the new plan, people will pay three-to- five dollars per month, per brand-name prescription and one or two dollars for generic drugs. Depending on their income. These co-payments will increase each year. The GOP plan creates an unlimited program of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). This tax break benefits the healthy and wealthy and could dramatically raise health insurance premiums for other Americans-- particularly families with moderate incomes and those with high health expenses. Seniors will lose their retiree health benefits. More than two million seniors in employer-based retiree plans are in jeopardy of being dropped from coverage because the bill creates incentives for employers to drop prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Conference Report before this body will have a detrimental effect on senior and disabled citizens in my home state of Michigan. 143,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan will lose their retiree health benefits. 183,200 Medicaid beneficiaries in Michigan will pay more for the prescription drugs they need. 90,000 fewer seniors in Michigan will qualify for low-income protections than under the Senate bill because of the assets test and lower qualifying income levels. 44,980 Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan will pay more for Part B premiums because of income relating. Providing affordable prescription drugs to our seniors and the uninsured should have been the goal. The Republican lead Congress squandered this opportunity to include a real prescription drug benefit within the Medicare plan. Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of national, state, and regional organizations that have come out against the Medicare conference report. I stand today with the seniors in my district and across the nation in opposition to this bill. I ask my colleagues to stand with me and vote against this Medicare Conference Report that fails to provide an affordable and reliable Medicare prescription drug coverage, gives billions to HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, prohibits drug reimportation, and privatizes Medicare.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately characterized H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.'' This bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance to look over this bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more than 1,700 pages in length. You can believe that there are many provisions contained in this bill that the other side does not want the public to know. So what better way to disguise this bad legislation than by burying it inside of 1,700 pages. This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems. This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation provisions are estimated to amount to only 3 months of U.S. energy consumption between now and 2020. This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy from affecting more utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow venture capitalists to put utility ratepayers into almost anything they wanted. The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened. A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts manufacturers of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether, from liability resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill release MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards those companies with $2 billion in federal aid. So the bill shifts a potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the polluter pays'' on its head. Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] control more than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and excavating our way to energy independence. The bill represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will be asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to the energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed to us.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately characterized H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.'' This bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance to look over this bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more than 1,700 pages in length. You can believe that there are many provisions contained in this bill that the other side does not want the public to know. So what better way to disguise this bad legislation than by burying it inside of 1700 pages. This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems. This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation provisions are estimated to amount to only three months of U.S. energy consumption between now and 2020. This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy from affecting more utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow venture capitalists to put utility ratepayers into almost anything they wanted. The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened. A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts manufacturers of MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) from liability resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill limit MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards those companies with $2 billion in Federal aid. So the bill shifts a potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the polluter pays'' on its head. Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls more than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and excavating our way to energy independence. This represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will be asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to the energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and Southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed to us.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business, I was unable to record my vote on four votes ordered for Nov. 7. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion offered by Representative Marshall to recommit the bill H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, rollcall No. 616; ``no'' on final passage of the conference report on H.R. 1588, rollcall No. 617; ``aye'' on the motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 6 offered by Representative Filner, rollcall No. 618; and ``aye'' on the motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 1 offered by Representative Cardoza, rollcall No. 619.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business, I was unable to record my vote on four votes ordered for today. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment offered by Representative Green to H.R. 1829, rollcall No. 610; ``no'' on the amendment offered by Representative Jackson-Lee to H.R. 1829, rollcall No. 611; ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 1829, the Federal Prisons Industries Act, rollcall No. 612; and ``aye'' on the motion offered by Representative DeLauro to instruct conferees to H.R. 2660, the bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for Fiscal Year 2004, rollcall No. 613; on the motion to instruct; ``aye'' on the motion offered by Representative Becerra to instruct conferees to H.R. 1308, child tax credit legislation, rollcall No. 614; and ``aye'' on the motion offered by Representative Capps to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, Medicare reform legislation, rollcall No. 615.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his leadership. I enjoy working with him and the things we do together. To my ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who continues to be a bright spot as we help and serve countries all over this world, I thank her for her leadership, generally and particularly on the HIV/AIDS issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct and ask that this body also support the motion to instruct. The pandemic that we see all over the world, HIV and AIDS, is serious trouble. That is what a pandemic is. It started in the continent of Africa, moving to Asia, to India, to the former Soviet Union and other places of the world. This is truly a pandemic that can be contained, not cured, but can be contained with the proper resources. As has been mentioned before, HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are illnesses and diseases that, if contained properly with education of those who are infected and in those regions of the world, we can cease the pandemic and begin to address the problems that we now face. The motion to instruct provides the resources that our country can give to those countries who find themselves in assault. We must do no less than to support the motion to instruct. We know how to contain this. We know where it is in pandemic proportions. When the resources are available in our world community, in our world global AIDS effort, we will find more children more healthy in their communities, in their families, in their countries. The troops that we send out across this world in these various places where the pandemic is, we then have resources to address that so that they do not then encounter these very same illnesses. The nongovernmental organizations, the NGOs that practice and actually teach and educate, and in some instances actually treat and provide the services, are there, are up and ready and can dispense the money that we have available. The faith-based network that is around this world, they give resources, training, education, as well as treatment. So I support the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) in her effort. It is important that we go along with the Senate. And this motion to instruct is a small step towards the $3 billion and the $15 billion commitment that this President made for a 3-year commitment. I hope that we will support the motion to instruct. It is the right way, and again, less than the President has advised he would do but better than what we have right now. I urge Members to support the motion to instruct.