Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his chairmanship in having gone through our budget for the first time, as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for his first time. I do believe that we have a balanced budget before us. It is a good budget with some modification as we go through the amendments today. I first want to bring to the Members' attention the earned income tax credit which in this bill allows $100 million for 45,000 people to be looked at to see if they are in compliance in order to receive the EITC. We believe, and we will be offering an amendment later today to reduce that to 25,000 people and to use 50 million of those tax dollars to look at corporations and other high-wagers to see if they are in compliance. The earned income tax credit assists moderate and low-income families. It provides for them revenues and monies they need for college educations and other things that this budget does not apply. So we hope that that $50 million will be adequate for the pilot program, and we will hear more on that as we go on throughout the day. Another is the Buy American provision that I have offered in this bill. In my home State of Michigan over 400,000 people are out of work. Many of the manufacturing jobs have gone offshore. I am told now that many of the service jobs are going offshore and we have to do something about that. This budget can do that and it can do better. We need the Buy American language, and I hope that we can retain it in this budget. Lastly, I think it is very important that we talk about Amtrak and save its funding. Amtrak does a wonderful service in our country, the eastern corridor, and across this country. I do not personally have the Amtrak service I want in my district. I would like to see it expanded. The number here for Amtrak is sorely underfunded. With those provisions as we address our amendments, we hope that we can make it a better bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague very much for bringing forth this very well-thought-out amendment in the time that we have, and I do know that he worked with the Parliamentarian to make it germane. Let me back up just a moment here before I get started. In the early seventies when the earned income tax credit was started, it was a Republican initiative, and the reason they put it forth and it was adopted is because they said if we give people who earn income, low income, I might tell my colleagues, with children, $34,600 and less, with children, if they will remain working, we will give them an earned income tax credit so that they can keep working and not go onto the welfare rolls. That was the reason for the earned income tax credit as it passed this Congress in the early seventies by Republican initiatives, and I think it was good then and it is certainly good now. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) states, this is a hit at those who can least afford it. Statistics show that this may recoup some $9 billion, and we need to go back for that. We need to go and look for the $9 billion for those people who have used the earned income tax credit and are not to get it, that they do not take that from the Treasury. We do need to go back on that, and I think we all feel that. We also ought to go after the $132 billion that individual taxpayers cheat on their tax forms with. We also need to go for the $70 billion that offshore corporations steal from our Federal Government, and we also need to go for the $46 billion that corporations cheat our Federal Government for. Our point is that in this budget, where I am proud to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies with my esteemed chairman and ranking member, $100 million is allowed to go after 45,000 low-income people who work every day and earn less than $34,000 with children, one or more children. Why not go back where the money is? We have got the biggest deficit our country has ever seen. We need to go back and recoup some of that money. I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to tell my colleagues that money, yes, go get it from those people from the earned income tax credit who are cheating our government; but, more importantly, go after the big corporations, those offshore corporations and other high income and other individuals who cheat our country. This is not the time to again put a black eye and to go after those families who are working every day trying to raise their children. The earned income tax credit is a great program, and we ought not go after it to decimate it. So what our amendment says is of the $100 million that has been appropriated in this budget, leave $25 million there and go after them, try to find those low-income people who are using the system to cheat our government. We hope that we find them. But with the $75 million that is left of the $100 million, go after the offshore corporations who cheat our country, over $170 billion worth. Go after those corporations who cheat our citizens out of $46 billion. So we want to make it even. Go after those in the earned income tax credit who may be making those claims, and not justifiably, appropriately, for them. This line in our budget, enforcement compliance in the EITC has increased 68 percent over last year's budget. Do we need to increase it that much or should we go after where the big money is? That is all the Congressman is doing, and I surely support the Congressman and commend him for bringing the amendment forward. I am happy to be a cosponsor with it. The working poor deserve our support during these difficult times. Many of the working poor have sons and daughters who are fighting offshore. I have some of those in my district. I want to try to help them keep their families together, keep their children safe. And the EITC is just one small thing that this government gives them so that they continue to work, yes, many times with no health insurance, earning less than $35,000 a year, raising their families so that they do not go on welfare. Of course we can do this, and we offer this amendment to say work with the low-income families. They are not asking for a handout. They just need a hand. And we are the Congress that can do that for them. So I support the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). I think he has done an outstanding job here. I am proud to be a cosponsor. Let us go after the big cheats. That is what that $75 million is there for. All of us want to encourage policies that encourage tax compliance among tax filers, but we know 100 percent compliance is impossible to obtain. Part of the problem is that the IRS does not have the resources to perform the investigations and audits in just about all filing categories. However, over the years Congress has concentrated its emphasis on tax compliance efforts at the working poor. None of us wants to encourage tax scofflaws, but focusing greater tax compliance solely on the working poor who qualify for the earned income tax credit demonstrates the mistaken tax priorities of this administration. Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti has offered the estimate that the IRS assesses almost $30 billion of taxes that is cannot collect because of tax fraud. That is a big problem, especially when our government is going to generate a budget deficit of $480 billion and possibly even more by the end of the fiscal year. This bill provides more money for increase tax compliance efforts. But where does it focus its efforts at greater tax compliance: fraud and mistakes in the Earned Income Tax Credit Program. The administration is shocked by that the EITC has an error rate that is estimated between 27 and 32 percent. According to the IRS, the avoidance costs amount to $7.8 billion or 2.8 percent of the tax compliance problem. Now that's going after the big bucks. If you looked at the tax compliance mandate contained in this, you would come away with the impression that the working poor are the number one tax scofflaw problem facing the nation. This bill increases provides $100 million in the EITC enforcement budget, over a 68.percent increase. Never mind the fact that 56 percent of the non-compliant taxpayers have incomes in excess of $100,000, and yet they are in the income category that is less likely to be audited. Simply put, the tax compliance priorities contained in this bill is a misallocation of funds. The Cooper, DeLauro, Kilpatrick amendment scales back the EITC precertification pilot program to $25 million and intends to restore greater balance in our tax compliance efforts by making more money available for investigating and auditing large and medium sized businesses. That's where the money is. That's where the greater incidence of tax cheating occurs. The amendment allows the IRS to move forward with the precertification program, but it also encourages the IRS to go after the big tax dodgers like major tax shelters such as corporate trusts, offshore accounts, other abusive corporate tax shelters. This amendment says lets go after tax cheats poor and rich, and represents a departure from the administration's policy of increasing the tax burden on the poor.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start, which in these desperate economic times should be strengthened and not weakened.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. My opposition is based on the following reasons. The bill will make it legal for faith-based institutions that receive Federal funds and run Head Start programs to discriminate in their hiring practices. I contend that our focus should be on continuing to fund a wonderful pre-school educational program. Unfortunately, this bill undermines current anti-discrimination laws, and will allow institutions to establish a litmus test in their hiring programs. Let me make it clear, I respect and admire the tremendous work performed by faith-based organizations. However, the Head Start Program is being used as a political vehicle to institutionalize discrimination in an early learning environment. We all believe in educating our youth in their embryonic learning states. I am struck though by the rhetoric from my majority colleagues that they are motivated to help disadvantaged students. That is a laudable goal, but the goal can be achieved through the current Head Start program. I am struck by the hypocrisy of the bill before us. The majority abhors affirmative action, yet they seek legal protection to discriminate based on religion. They allege that affirmative action is discriminatory. Yet they seek to sanction religious-based discrimination through the pre-school educational process. The logic and the method are flawed. I also oppose this bill because it purports to administer Head Start through a state block grant. States can also use block grant money to supplant Federal funds, in addition to not requiring performance standards. I question the wisdom of relying on states to use their discretion in this manner. Increasingly, we have witnessed the administration promote policies that the House and the Senate pass as laws that re-direct power to the states. The majority recipe has produced catastrophic results, the most glaring example is the No Child Left Behind Act. The majority promised wholesale reform, and it is delivering widespread misery. If H.R. 2210 is enacted, more misery is surely on the way for America's poor and disadvantaged children. I urge my colleagues to reject the false premises put forward by the proponents of H.R. 2210, and to embrace the Woolsey amendment that restores civil rights to Head Start teachers, and the Miller substitute amendment that retains Federal-to-local funding and which strikes hiring discrimination.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003, sponsored by Representatives Gutkneckt and Emerson. I appreciate their hard work and efforts to bring this bill up for debate in this chamber. They have faced considerable obstacles in trying to get this bill considered by this chamber. They are to be commended for their success in having H.R. 2427 debated tonight. Opponents of this bill suggest that patients whom we intend to help with the passage of this bill will actually be harmed. They charge that they will be vulnerable to purchasing unsafe prescription drugs and that we are encouraging patients to purchase lower-cost drugs from countries that have less stringent regulatory regimes. Opponents are also concerned that the bill repeals language that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that reimportation of prescription drugs is safe before any reimportation occurs. There are more objections to the legislation, but I have mentioned the major arguments advocated by the bill's opponents. Not too long ago a pharmacist from Michigan visited with my Washington staff. He told my staff how seniors would leave his pharmacy in tears because they did not have the resources to purchase their medicine. This is an important issue to seniors. It is an important issue to all Americans because the high cost of prescription drugs is driving many families to dilute prescribed dosages in order to stretch out their prescription orders to make them last longer. If pharmacists were able to purchase drugs, lower costs would be passed on to our seniors and families who are struggling with the high cost of health care. This is the only opportunity that this Congress will have to vote on legislation dealing with the cost of prescription drugs. I am using this opportunity to support lower drug prices for many Americans. This bill puts people before profits. It puts affordable health care for Americans ahead of profit margins for the pharmaceutical industry. It is time to send the industry and the Administration a message: Americans want affordable drug prices. Support this bill and put people ahead of the profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for yielding to me. This has been an excellent discussion as we talk about saving lives. There will be $500 million in the Millennium Challenge Account to implement for up to 12 countries, 74 of the poorest countries, the Millennium Challenge Account will probably address 12 of those, and we are happy for that. People are dying today. That is why we are here offering this amendment for $300 million to put into the pandemic that is around the world, centered in Africa. The epicenter is moving to India, Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean, Latin America. What better time than now to stand up? Our President said 2 weeks ago that this House and this Senate must fully fund this initiative, $15 billion over 5 years. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that, does not recommend, does not fund $3 billion, and this Congress and America now knows that the deficit for America for this year will be $455 billion at least, some predict will be more than that. The time is now. We must fund this initiative now. I thank all of my colleagues who are speaking out in support of this to save lives. Children are dying every day. People are dying every day.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would begin to meet the President's pledge as he traveled to Africa less than a week ago. During the time in Africa, President Bush pledged to five heads of State and millions of people that he would fund the AIDS initiative at $15 billion over 5 years. On March 27, this Congress passed an authorization for that $15 billion commitment over 5 years. In that authorization in March it had $3 billion as the first installment on that $15 billion pledge. My amendment offers $300 million to begin to meet the pledge, and again not fully funding the pledge, understanding the restraints that we are within. I offer this amendment because, as was mentioned before, the pandemic in the world and certainly in Africa on that continent, sub-Saharan Africa, 48 countries, over 700 million people with a high incidence of HIV and AIDS need the assistance. In addition, in India, with over 1 billion people, China with similar populations, Russia, the Caribbean, there is a pandemic of enormous proportions all over the world. This is the number one country in the world. We ought to set the pace. I do not want our commitments to be taken lightly. The President has seen firsthand what this illness has done to families, to communities, to countries of the world, and I urge him to accept our amendment. We ask that the $300 million be offset, and I fully support the Millennium Challenge Account and commend the President for beginning the process of establishing it. The $300 million offset would come from the $800 million in this foreign operations bill, which would leave $500 million in the Millennium Challenge Account. And I might add, this House just passed the MCA account last week. The Senate has yet to act on this account. We do know that the bills will be sent to the President soon, he will sign them and he will begin initiating the administration in setting up the Millennium Challenge Account. I want to discuss what things have to happen before any of this $500 million can be spent. The President will appoint a CEO, with support and advice from the Senate, who then will hire a board and put a board in place to administer the MCA. They will then hire 150 to 200 employees to implement the things that the legislation requires. Twelve countries will then be identified that meet certain criteria in the bill. The proposals have to be drawn up, they have to be submitted, the countries have to respond again, and then the money then has to be given out. We believe much of that $500 million will not be spent before the first quarter in this fiscal year. The pandemic stretches across these countries I have mentioned, over 42 million people living with HIV/AIDS today. UNAIDS has already said to us that of all the monies coming into the U.N. for the pandemic, we will be $3 billion short of what we really need to address the pandemic. Given that situation, given the whole process that the MCA must go through between now and October 1 when we think it might be initiated and funded, right through the spring before all those steps can be taken and fully implemented, we believe that the offset matches and that there will be enough resources in MCA, which I fully support, to begin the process of establishing the Millennium Challenge Account. At the same time, people living with HIV and AIDS are dying as we speak. The money will not be pilfered, as one Member said earlier today. These are things happening on the ground in these countries around the world today. There are proven success stories in many countries around the world. So I urge my colleagues to accept the Kilpatrick amendment. It is on time, it is right now, and it is something that millions of people need all over this world as we speak. I want everybody to know again that the $3 billion shortfall that the UNAIDS says is needed is needed today and can be spent today.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his leadership in steering another bill to committee under difficult times. To the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member, who is committed to the international community and has shown that in the leadership, I thank her for yielding me this time and for crafting a bill that I will support in the end as we go through this debate. As most Members of Congress know and very few members of the country know, the foreign assistance bill is only 1 percent of the total budget of the United States of America. Our budget is $2.2 trillion, and as the leading power in the world, this foreign assistance bill is not quite 1 percent of that. A good sum and we should be there for the other countries of the world. This budget funds many countries of the world, as was mentioned by our chairperson. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt are fully funded, and I think they should be. Other countries of the world are not so taken care of, and I think we can do better. At a time when we find the budget shrinking, deficits soaring, and this year we expect a $455 billion deficit at least, we do have to make certain decisions in how we fund our Government, how we fund our domestic programs, how we fund education, health care, housing, and those things that Americans need. So I understand it when some Americans do not understand that we have a responsibility as a superpower in the world to help other countries less fortunate and who are strategic allies to this country of the United States of America. So the budget before us today crafted by both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is a good budget. It does have shortcomings, as was mentioned, and I would like to go over a few of those. The Child Survival and Health account needs to be more fully funded to take care of the problems of the world. We have heard much discussion and we will hear more today about the pandemic of HIV and AIDS. India with over 1 billion people, China with nearly the same or more people, the Caribbean, Russia, and other countries are now finding epidemic proportions of HIV and AIDS. We have servicemen and women in those countries who may be afflicted if we do not act now. The President was recently in Africa, and I commend him for going. I also commend him for beginning in setting up the Millenium Challenge Account. Any additional foreign assistance that we can give, and the President has shown that he understands this, as the superpower in the world, I believe we must do and I commend him for that. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is at pandemic proportions. All over this world where our servicemen and women now represent our Nation and in some instances fight to secure the world, we must as the superpower in the world fund this pandemic appropriately and we have not done that. Malaria, tuberculosis, maternal health, family planning we have to step up as the superpower in the world and help those countries as partners in this humane society that we live in. Postnatal care, those kinds of things that help various countries who are less fortunate and who are not able to help themselves, we should be there for them, and many times in this budget we are unable to do that. Agriculture, in many of those same countries, agriculture is how they not only feed themselves but are able to export their agriculture products, thereby making it a revenue base for their countries. It is our responsibility to join with them in partnership to help them with that. In some instances we do, but I believe that we can do better. The ESF account, the Economic Support Fund, that we also use to help other countries is also underfunded. It could be better and it is less than what the President recommended and less coming out of our budget. Those are just a few areas. We are the superpower of the world. It is up to us as leaders of the free world to maintain stability around the world where we can, and we must not forget the men and women who risk their lives every day for us, freedom in this country and around the world, to make sure that they have the best health care that they need to sustain themselves and their families.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. I was unable to cast a vote on the following rollcall votes, Nos. 396 and 397. I was forced to return to my congressional district on official business after rollcall vote No. 395. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 396 and ``no'' on No. 397.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the outrageous display of discourtesy and disrespect shown to Democratic members of the House and Minority Leader Pelosi. In a brazen display of disregard for Democratic members of the House, the Capitol Police were dispatched on three occasions to disrupt the reading of legislative text by Democratic members who serve on the Ways and Means Committee. The Members were attempting to ascertain the text of the legislation that was drafted without their consultation and for which their dissent would not be heard or heeded. The actions of the Republican Chairman and the Members of the committee was indeed egregious and beyond the pale of House decorum. Indeed, the actions and attitudes witnessed, and the rhetoric and rationale put forward by the majority dishonors the foundation of civility and respect of the House of Representatives. It is clear that a political fissure exists between the majority and the minority. I call upon my majority colleagues to embrace the age-old methodology and attitude of, ``. . . do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' Today was a sad day in the annals of House deliberations. I hope that the American public does not have to ever witness this type of behavior again. I also hope that my esteemed colleagues will re-embrace the spirit and method of appropriate House decorum. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McCrery

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers have given the U.S. Congress the authority to allocate their hard-earned money to build and repair highways, bridges, mass transit systems and transportation projects of all kinds. In keeping with our Nation's traditions, this program is largely funded by the Federal Government but conducted by the States. However, there lacks sufficient oversight tools to monitor how Federal transportation money is being spent at the State and local levels. More than 80 percent of comparative studies have found that contracting-out engineering, design and inspection costs of transportation projects cost more than doing this work in-house. The taxpayers could have saved some money and gotten a similar quality if state and local engineers handled the projects. Furthermore, skilled and dedicated professionals have been leaving State and local governments for private sector, not only because salaries are higher and career opportunities are greater, but it is also because transportation departments have been reducing their staffs, holding down their pay and contracting-out the most interesting work. Now that the ``baby boom'' generation of engineers is preparing to retire, State and local transportation departments need to take action to retain existing engineering and technical employees and to recruit skilled and dedicated professionals to take the place of those who are leaving. Because of the oversight deficiency and an intention to keep professional engineers with the State and local transportation departments, I would like to introduce H.R. 1980, The Safety, Accountability, and Funding Efficiency for Transportation Act of 2003, to encourage State and local agencies that carry out surface transportation projects to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before procuring architectural, engineering and related services from a private contractor. By conducting the cost-benefit analysis, a State's and the Federal Government agency will be able to determine if using private contractors is cost effective and if it is in the public interest to use a private contractor or in-house resources when procuring such services. My constituents through National Association of State Highway and Transportation Unions, the AFL-CIO's Department of Professional Employees, AFSCME, Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America, have shown their support for H.R. 1980, Safety, Accountability, and Funding Efficiency for Transportation Act of 2003. The heart of this bill is to require government agencies to prepare cost benefit analysis for private contracts with a Federal funding value of $100,000 or more. The analyses must contain the cost comparison of a proposed project if it is done by a private contractor and a government agency. In my opinion, it is now time to put accountability in utilizing the taxpayers' hard-earned money at State and local levels, especially in spending Federal transportation funds.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery of one of Michigan's fine Air Guardsmen. Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald of the Michigan Air National Guard 110th Fighter Wing made courageous decisions when his aircraft was hit by a surface-to-air missile while flying over Baghdad, Iraq on April 8, 2003. On April 8, 2003, Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald took off from Al Jaber Air Base Kuwait on his second mission of the day. He and his wingman learned that they would be among the first Close Air Support aircraft to fly over the city of Baghdad. His aircraft was shot at numerous times during the next 30 minutes, while he provided vital intelligence about Iraqi ambush positions. The flight was low on fuel and leaving Baghdad when it was suddenly struck by a surface-to-air missile. Major Ewald flew the wounded-bird for about 12 minutes, while preparing for an injury-free ejection. Before ejecting, he and his wingman managed to complete several battle damage checklists, identify critical aircraft system operations, make tentative plans for aircraft recovery, and gather important information about threats affecting future Close Air Support operations. A friendly U.S. Army forces rescued Major Ewald 15 minutes after his parachute landing. Following a physical examination, he returned to active duty. Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald entered the active duty Air Force on January 15, 1989 and served in the active duty until July 1, 1998 when he joined the Michigan Air National Guard. During his active-duty career, he flew in support of contingency operations over Bosnia, Operation Deny Flight, in support of the United Nations Forces in the Republic of Korea, and over Iraq in support of Operation Southern Watch. In 1998, he separated from active-duty and joined the 110th Fighter Wing where he has served as Flight Instructor and Squadron Weapons Officer. Since his transfer to the 110th, Major Ewald has deployed with the unit to numerous stateside training exercises and recently returned from a four-month tour of duty in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom where he flew over 30 combat sorties. With the heroic example of Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald, I would also like to laud all 1,500 members of Michigan Air and Army National Guard who are now serving their country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the Detroit Regional Chamber's leading role in fostering Michigan's prosperity over the past century. The Detroit Regional Chamber was founded in 1903 with 253 charter members. It is now the largest Chamber of Commerce in the United States with more than 19,000 active members. For a century, the Detroit Regional Chamber has made many important contributions throughout Southeast Michigan. From its significant participation in the ``Campaign for Good Roads'' in 1910 and 1911 to its influential work toward setting up the SMART bus system, the Detroit Regional Chamber has demonstrated itself as a dependable community leader in Southeast Michigan. With a new century come new challenges for our region. Looking at its endeavors in the past 100 years, the Detroit Regional Chamber will continue to remain the important leader that Southeastern Michigan has come to depend upon. I stand ready and look forward to cooperating with the Detroit Regional Chamber and other community leaders to meet these new challenges. I salute the Detroit Regional Chamber on its 100th anniversary and I thank the officers and staff of the Chamber for their hard work. They have worked tirelessly to make Detroit attractive to the business community. I appreciate all that they do. With their continued hard work, I am confident they will achieve greater accomplishments for the Detroit Chamber of Commerce and the City of Detroit in the 21st century.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to this bill, and for many of the same reasons already mentioned: the underfunding of the Leave No Child Behind Act, the cut in the children's health programs, the LIHEAP energy assistance program for low-income people, Head Start, and cancer treatment and research. Today, however, Madam Chairman, I would like to speak on urban hospitals, the hospitals in America that treat most Americans when they have traumatic illnesses. Urban hospitals need help in our system, and we are not in this bill giving them that help. Urban hospitals treat hundreds of thousands of people with uncompensated care, no insurance or underinsurance. It is unfortunate that our country, the richest in the world, cannot at this time help our hospitals that are in critical condition. I met with my group of doctors just this last Monday, the Michigan State Society of Medical Doctors. They all talked about not being able to treat patients, about the reimbursement rates and the underinsuring. Many of them are dropping patients. We have got to do better by our health institutions. Our health system is in critical condition. This Congress could help support that. This bill does not do that. I cannot support this bill in its present form, and I would hope we could go back to get a better bill to help the people of America, to help the seniors that have built this country, and so that our health care system in our urban hospitals can sustain themselves and take care of their mission, which is taking care of the people of America. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my dismay and concern about H.R. 2660, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies. This bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children, in addition to providing financial resources for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented. The bill is terribly flawed for the following reasons. First of all the bipartisan supported No Child Left Behind Act is a gargantuan un- funded mandate. The President promised to revamp our educational system, to make schools accountable, to raise standards, to increase teacher competency and training, and to increase parent involvement. Instead, what has been delivered amounts to lip service. The Labor HHS bill seriously under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds in eight years. The bill requires school districts to meet student testing requirements, improve teacher quality and imposes other mandates. Additionally, the bill falls $350 million short of the $3.3 billion promised in (real terms) to states to improve teacher quality. Fifty-four thousand fewer teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported professional development. This bill falls $334 million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds promised. In my home state of Michigan, under this bill, the children of Michigan will lose $202 million in Title I grants below the amount called for by the No Child Left Behind Act. This situation is further compounded by the fact that after-school learning opportunities are being short-changed. Under this bill, Michigan will lose $23 million in After-School Program Funding. I said earlier, this bill has been misrepresented. This fact is true. Children and entire school systems are going to be left behind. The American public has been fed a feel-good diet of positive rhetoric by the President regarding our educational system. The reality is, the promises are empty, the financial cupboard is bare, administrators are disillusioned and our children are the losers. The insult that is added to the injury is that State budgets are crippled by unprecedented tax cuts that have been enacted, despite the reality of downward spiraling State economies. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been a witness to the collegial discussions about the constrained budgetary environment we are forced to operate within, thereby causing the under-funding of vital programs such as No Child Left Behind. I cannot sit by idly and embrace the current rhetoric that our Nation's school systems and their students are well-served by the bill before us today. This is not a good bill for America's children. Madam Chairman, we are telling our children that the pursuit of an education and obtaining a degree will unlock the doors to opportunity. I am compelled to pose the question, where will the money come for to pay for students to attend school? Let us consider this, tuition at colleges and universities is increasing rapidly. Under this bill, grants such as Pell Grants, will finance only 38 percent of the cost of a public university--compared to 84 percent when the Pell Grant program was established. Students are confronted with greater costs and fewer means to pursue their dreams. I stated earlier that this bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children. Furthermore, the President has informed Americans that needed financial resources are being provided for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented. The bill under consideration does not best serve the needs of so many of our Nation's students and school systems who were promised a first-class funded educational system, but instead they will receive thrift store funding. False hopes were created and broken promises in the form of un-funded mandates will now be the reward. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We are experiencing a health care crisis in our Nation. In my district alone, there are two hospitals that are operating at such negative losses that they may be forced to close. These urban-safety net hospitals, like most other urban hospitals across our Nation, have a high percentage of uncompensated, uninsured and underinsured care. They do not turn anyone away. We cannot turn our backs on them as well. The closing of these hospitals across our Nation creates a cascading effect that only adds to the health care emergency in our Nation. When one hospital closes, other hospitals must take on the burden of uncompensated care and the problem continues until the next hospital closes. When are we going to step up to the plate and ensure that we provide the funds necessary to fix our shattered health care system? Instead of passing tax cut after tax cut that only raid our cupboards and benefits the wealth, Congress should take heed of the problem our urban hospitals are facing and provide a funding stream to help these important health care entities in this bill that provide a high percentage of uncompensated care. But no, tax cuts are more important. Our distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations committee, Mr. Obey tried to offer an amendment that would have restored Medicaid and SCHIP coverage to children who have been removed from those programs over the last two years. This amendment was defeated on a rollcall vote in committee. The amendment would have provided the funds by making modest reductions in the benefits that the highest-income taxpayers received under the 2003 tax bill. At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their job-related health care coverage, the State fiscal crisis is leading States to cut back health coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP and various state-finance programs. This is acceptable to many here in Congress that would prefer to see massive tax cuts than a strengthened health care infrastructure. With States making the difficult decisions of cutting Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility, more and more individuals are joining the ranks of the uninsured. This in turn puts more of a burden on our hospitals that already are struggling to keep afloat. We need to get our priorities straight. We can do much better than what we have done with this bill to help those across our Nation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time in this most difficult discussion, but what a sham we have today for our seniors of America who built this country. Not only do you not have a prescription drug benefit, but this one you will not get till 2006, if you get it at all. It will privatize Medicare by the year 2010. What most people want in America, including seniors, is to contain the high costs of prescription drugs. This bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. That in itself is enough to say vote ``no'' on this bill. What a sham for the seniors who built this country. This plan will destroy the retirement benefits that companies in my district like General Motors, like Daimler Chrysler already are giving to their retirees. This plan is a disincentive for them to keep giving that. Vote ``no'' on this plan. It is unfortunate I do not have any more time. Vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment and opposition to H.R. 1. We, in Congress, over the last few years, have repeatedly pledged to provide seniors with the prescription drug coverage they so desperately need--and deserve. My Republican colleagues have touted this day as a ``historical day.'' Unfortunately, for Democrats, who support a meaningful, universal, and comprehensive drug plan under Medicare, this day is not a ``historical day'' in the positive sense but a day when we failed on our promise to come through for our seniors. What this bill does do is afford the Republicans the ability to say to seniors, ``We came through on our pledge.'' Unfortunately, their rhetoric does not match up to the emptiness that will be felt in our seniors' pocketbooks. Nor does it match up in providing seniors with real choice and a meaningful, comprehensive prescription drug program. The GOP Prescription Drug Plan is a flawed plan, period. It would put the power in the hands of private insurers--those same insurers who have abandoned seniors in providing essential health care services in the past. Why our Republican colleagues want to give even more power to HMOs and private insurers is a question I cannot answer. However, the consequences of such actions will be felt by the most vulnerable in our society. The majority of seniors across our nation live on fixed monthly incomes. With so many seniors today living longer, this also means that they need to save as much money as they can to ensure their survival over the years. They cannot afford to pay exorbitant costs for their drugs. Moreover, seniors need security. What they do not need is to be forced into private managed care plans that are able to opt-out of coverage for seniors at their free will. Seniors deserve better--they deserve a universal, comprehensive, affordable, and meaningful drug plan under Medicare. The House Republican prescription drug bill is even worse than the one considered by Congress last year and goes much further in privatizing Medicare. Seniors would need to use private insurance companies for drug coverage and these private insurance companies and managed care plans would design the new prescription drug plans. These insurance plans would also need to commit to the program for only one year. What does this mean? It means that seniors can be dropped from their plan year-to-year. They would have to change their plan, their doctor, and the drugs they take every 12 months. This puts seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies, rather than giving them an option that provides them with the security and stability they need. Seniors do not want to be forced into an HMO. In fact, 72 percent of seniors polled say they do not want to be forced into getting coverage through an HMO. We need to listen to those we are trying to serve. The GOP plan also receives an ``F'' on the affordability scale. Under their plan, seniors would be required to pay high premiums even if they are not receiving coverage. The Republican plan would deny assistance to those seniors with drug costs between $2,000 and $4,900. Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries would fall into this ``coverage gap'' every year; however, they would still be expected to pay the monthly premium. Seniors would be asked to continue paying for a service they are not receiving--a service that does not honor seniors with meaningful support in the first place. Another glitch in the Republican bill is its inability to deal with the underlying problem--the rising costs of prescription drugs. Seniors want help in curbing the increasing costs of prescription drugs. In fact, seniors prefer cost control measures by a vote of two to one. While seniors want help in purchasing their medicines, they also want solutions in curbing the rising costs. The Republican bill does not do this. It neglects to include an important provision supported by Democrats to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to negotiate for lower prices like the Veterans' Administration has done. Including cost-control provisions is the right and responsible thing to do; however, our Republican friends do not see the benefit of this. How unfortunate. The Democratic Substitute, which I proudly support, is the coverage that will fulfill our pledge to seniors. It provides them with real assistance within Medicare and includes provisions to curb the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors do not need to worry about paying more in the future if they decide to stay in the traditional Medicare program. They do need to worry about this with the Republican bill, since the ``competitive bidding'' provision would force seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs than they do now. Seniors want a plan that is straight up, no-nonsense, and significant. That is what Democrats have provided in the substitute measure. I want to do right by the seniors in my district and for seniors all across the nation who are struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need to live fulfilling and healthy lives. H.R. 1 was constructed with the interests of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies at heart. The voice of seniors was nothing but a faint echo in the rooms where this bill was constructed and their best interests have been left in the dust. For these reasons, I vote against passage of H.R. 1. We need to safeguard our nation's seniors, not private insurance companies.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today. Had I been present for legislative business, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following measures under consideration of suspension of the rules, H. Res. 264, H. Res. 177, H. Con. Res. 209, and H.R. 2465.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, official business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 9, 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 1610, to redesignate the post office located in Marceline, MO as the ``Walt Disney Post Office Building,'' rollcall No. 249; H. Con. Res. 162, honoring the City of Dayton, OH for hosting ``Inventing Flight: The Centennial Celebration,'' rollcall No. 250; and S. 763, designating the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' rollcall No. 251.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for legislative business on Monday, June 2, 2003 I would have voted ''yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 227, H. Res. 159, Expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Irma Rangel; rollcall No. 228, H. Res. 195, Congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs; and rollcall No. 229, H.R. 1465, Designating the facility of the United States Postal Service in Iron Station, North Carolina as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 2, the conference report that gives a tax cut to people earning over $300,000 per year, and robs the Federal Treasury of needed revenue to fund health care, education, and unemployment opportunities for millions of Americans. The conference report does nothing to significantly improve the financial plight of destitute and dispirited unemployed and underemployed workers. Over 2.7 million jobs have been lost over the past 2 years, and H.R. 2 will not provide relief to them. The conference report is still terribly skewed towards the wealthy. The measure before us contains a useful provision that increases the child credit from $600 to $1,000. The increase is premised on the flawed notion that a tax credit is equivalent to disposable income. The bottom line is, unemployed and poor people need employment and disposable income, not the expansion of a tax credit. I also want to emphasize that States around the country, and in particular, Michigan, will still have to confront the reality of escalating budget deficits and fewer dollars from the Federal Government to fund needed services. As we debate the issues before us, I must emphasize that I do not subscribe to supply-side economic theory, and apparently, neither does Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has criticized the efficacy and timing of the tax cut that is about to be enacted. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be outraged that the majority persists in engaging in backroom negotiations devoid of input from Democratic conferees. Democrats have been marginalized at every juncture in the conference process. I remain resolute in my refusal to yield. I also want to advise my colleagues and the American public of a critical point--Republicans are making grandiose promises that will never be realized. In the near future, we will all witness the folly of H.R. 2, and experience the inevitable economic pain that will befall our Nation in the aftermath of this massive and ill-advised tax cut. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 1588. If this were a straightforward Defense Authorization bill, it would have my support, but the provisions contained in this legislation go far beyond the scope of the Pentagon and the great men and women who grace our uniformed services. This bill has become a Trojan Horse. The Defense bill is being used as a legislative vehicle by which the President, the Secretary of Defense and a complaint majority in this chamber can rewrite the rules that conserve our land and wildlife resources. This bill is not about providing for the health and welfare of our armed services, or taking care of military needs at home and abroad, or about advancing our military capabilities. The underlying bill contained a major rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that goes far beyond what the military needs or requested. The Endangered Species Act specifically allows the Secretary of Defense to waive requirements for purposes of advancing our national security. In other words, the Secretary has waiver authority under present law. But for reasons that are beyond me, the Secretary of Defense wants broader exemptions than are found in current law. For example, the bill weakens ``critical habitat'' designation requirements to such an extent that they are only done on a discretionary basis. These changes to our national environmental laws are being railroaded without consideration of a full debate and without an opportunity to consider a more sensible alternative. The majority, in its rush to pass bad legislation, has denied the opportunity for Members to consider an alternative environmental provision authored by my fellow colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall. The majority has denied us a right to discuss this important issue and the right to offer amendments. Mr. Chairman, given the tilted playing field on which H.R. 1588 is being considered, I regret that I must vote against final passage. Before closing, I want to pay a salute to the men and women of our armed forces and thank them for a job well done and for the sacrifices they are making to protect our Nation. As I recall the swiftness with which they marched into Baghdad, I am puzzled at the implication of some that our present environmental laws and regulations impaired their military readiness. I am convinced that our military is well prepared, and am equally convinced that they can maintain a high standard of readiness under existing environmental laws.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that America does not want. America needs jobs. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today with a profound sense of outrage. I am outraged that the majority has once again brought a tax cut bill to the floor that will further exacerbate the spiraling deficits that confront our government. I am also outraged that the majority has denied Democrats the opportunity to offer and debate a substitute. Finally, I am outraged at the disservice that the American public has to endure because they will not be afforded the opportunity to witness a full debate on the merits of the bill we are considering. The bill under consideration provides tax cuts for individuals and businesses totaling $549.5 billion over 11 years. The facts of the matter are, this horrific bill fails to provide real solutions to the problems of stagnant economic growth, unemployment and the fiscal crises in the States. This bill is overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $105,600 in 2003, with $42,800 of that coming from cuts in the capital gains and dividends tax rate. Middle income taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $218. The top 5 percent of households would receive 75 percent of the benefits. Only one-fifth of households with income between $40,000 and $50,000 a year receive any benefit at all. A look at the facts reveals that this bill will result in staggering long-term deficits that will burden future generations, forcing cuts in vital programs such as Social Security and Medicare and further weakening economic growth. I am astonished that my colleagues have the temerity to bring this bill to the floor, especially when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently warned against costly new tax cuts when the government is already facing record-high deficits. It is very interesting that the majority will tout Chairman Greenspan when it suits them, and discounts his counsel when it runs counter to their political agenda. I am also outraged the bill before us does absolutely noting to address the budget crises affecting States. States are facing their worst budget gaps since World War II. Unlike the Federal Government, States must balance their budgets every year and have been forced to cut programs and lay off thousands of workers. I believe that the best way to stimulate the economy is to put money into the coffers of State governments, and into the hands of a everyday workers like those who live and work in my district. This bill will do nothing to support programs related to education and health care, hiring back furloughed employees, or extending unemployment benefits to millions of the unemployed. My concerns are quite simple, unemployment is now at 6 percent and the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months account for 20 percent of all unemployed workers, the largest proportion in a decade. The economy has lost 2.7 million jobs in the last 2 years, but this bill does nothing to help the unemployed. Contrary to what the bill's supporters believe, a tax cut for wealthy investors does nothing to help unemployed workers pay the bills. This is the third economic stimulus package of the Bush administration. The first two did little to stimulate the economy and this one will only increase the misery index for many Americans. America cannot endure another stimulus plan that results in more economic stagnation, sagging consumer confidence and rising unemployment. This bill does not include a 26-week extension of unemployment benefits nor temporary grants to States to provide benefits to low-wage and part-time workers. Mr. Speaker, today the majority is engaged in another reckless tax cut endeavor that is steeped in unfairness and will contribute to staggering deficits. I am outraged that Democrats have been denied the opportunity to provide a viable alternative and Americans are being deprived of the opportunity to hear a full and open debate. I cannot and will not support this bill and urge my colleagues to be courageous and hold and similarly cast a dissenting vote.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, It is vital that we implement AMBER Alert systems, not just in our local communities, but nationwide. Our efforts to crack down on child abductors and abusers will be fruitless if we cannot transcend state borders quickly enough to catch these vicious criminals. I am in full support of a national system that will provide for such coordination. In the conference report, we have just that, a provision that provides for a nationwide alert system that is cost-effective and technologically savvy. That is, however, not the only provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There are many provisions in this bill that, while attempting to deter these criminals from committing such heinous acts, infringe upon the livelihoods of many innocent individuals and prohibit what would normally be harmless, legal acts. I vote for the H.R. 1104, the House version of this conference report in hopes that conferees would come together and agree upon a bill that would attack the key issue at hand, protecting our children from molesters and pedophiles. After reviewing the conference report, I did not see any substantive alterations or any elimination of these bad provisions, but rather I noticed additional provisions that, again, hurt the livelihood of innocent individuals and legal acts. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vote ``NO'' on final passage of the conference report and I will further expound on why I did so below. The PROTECT Act would expand the type of homicide that can be punished by death. This will would provide for this expansion, despite the fact that more than half of death penalty cases are found to be erroneous. Cognizant of the disproportionate number of minorities being sentenced to death yearly, and the high number of erroneous rulings by the court system, I am very reluctant to support such a provision. Furthermore, I am not a proponent of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines because they undermine and eliminate judicial discretion in individual cases. Judges, under the provision, are unable to impose a lesser sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding a given case. There should not be a one-size-fits-all sentencing structure when judges are determining incarceration of a human being. This bill would increase certain mandatory minimum sentences for many sexual abuse crimes. For example, for child abduction cases current law consists of a minimum of 51-63 months in jail. This bill increases the minimum to 121-151 months in jail. Judges engage in numerous cases regarding sexual abduction and have more experience and expertise in those cases than we do. Therefore, we should not second-guess their decisions on whether to impose a sentence that is more lenient. They see the defendant and victim, they hear the arguments and testimony, and hence, we should show deference to their rulings. Similar to the mandatory minimum provisions, this bill also provides for a ``two strikes and you're out'' section that creates a mandatory life sentence for sexual offenders that have been convicted more than once. This provision negates a judges discretion and ability to impose just sentences. Currently, there is no such law that provides for mandatory imprisonment for life after being convicted of a sex crime. Under this report, if an individual commits a sex crime and is jailed, subsequent to that person's release, he or she will be supervised for life. The statute of limitations regarding these crimes will be voided and an individual can be supervised for his entire life. Not only will it be difficult for these persons to find employment or social acceptance after such a conviction, but this bill will also allow them to be followed and observed day-to-day. Another bad provision that was added in conference has been coined the ``crack-house statute amendments''. Essentially, this provision will make legitimate businesses the victim of felony charges if they cannot guarantee a drug free property or business. This provision was intended to eliminate the many detrimental effects of ``rave'' parties that allegedly expose drugs and drug usage to the minors that are present. This provision permits government to narrow its focus to particular parties and social gatherings where drug usage is allegedly prevalent and impose felony charges on the owners as a means to eradicating the drug problem. Quite to the contrary, what it will do is deter innocent, law-abiding property owners and potentially lucrative sole proprietors from investing in the community because of their inability to ensure a drug-free environment. This provision is bad for community and economic development and does not guarantee that these ``raves'' will cease to exist, or that drugs will not be readily available to youth. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am vehemently opposed to the conference agreement. It is anti-civil liberty and overreaching. Any attempt to provide strong protection for children is trumped by the unreasonable persistence of the majority to increase penalties for these cases. As I stated earlier, the court is experienced enough to decipher individual sex crime cases and impose the appropriate sentence. We should focus on the issue at hand--a system that is technologically apt enough to produce the type of nationwide coordination that we need to catch criminals. Thereafter, the courts will proceed as needed, on a case-by- case basis. I support the need for an AMBER Alert system, but I do not support the conference agreement in its entirety.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, let me add that the mayor of the city of Detroit was here representing the young people. He is 32 years old and attended a historically black college; he is now a lawyer. It just demonstrates we can be anything that we want to be if we just rise up and speak out and be the very best that God asked us to be.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, to our fine colleague, the former State Senator and now Congressman from Florida, for coming in and taking the mantle of leadership by the hand and helping to move our country forward, I want him to know he is to be admired. He is certainly a fine symbol for young people all over this world to know that when we speak up and have a conscience about what we believe, our families are better, our people are better, and our countries are better. So I thank the gentleman for coming here. He really had big shoes to fill, but I want Mrs. Carrie Meek to know that he is doing a wonderful job and we are very proud of him. I am honored and privileged to be here with my colleagues tonight for what I consider to be one of the most important issues we will ever consider during my stay here in this United States Congress. The young people of America and the citizens across this country by the tens of thousands came to Washington, D.C. last Tuesday, April 1, to speak out and to demonstrate, to assemble, as our Constitution allows, to say to the world that we do not want our country to go back. We want to go forward. We are the sons and daughters of this civilization, and we believe that if we can go to war, we can also go to the universities, and that the doors of the American universities funded by public dollars must stay open. It was wonderful to see all the people there. And I want to particularly talk about the young people, the young faces that were there last week. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was born and raised in Michigan all my life. I think it is not coincidental that this case being heard is from the University of Michigan. This university of over 35,000 students for many years has produced leaders for this country, and has produced fine scientists and teachers and engineers and other kinds of people, like so many other universities around this country. This is not the time to wipe out opportunity. It is a time to expand opportunity so that all God's children can have a higher education experience. I believe that education is the key to a person's life. The more of it that one gets, the more interaction one has with people like oneself, but also people who are different than we are, who come from different backgrounds, this prepares us to be the kind of citizen who can lead anything, who can make this country move forward, and can even, yes, serve in this United States Congress. So the young people who came, my colleagues, and I know we all saw them from all walks of life, from universities all over this country, they came to say to this Supreme Court, please do not shut the door of opportunity now. We are ready. We have been raised, we have excelled, and we need you to keep the doors of our public universities open. Now, this case at the University of Michigan not only affects that university, as my colleagues know, but educational institutions all over America. Over 100 businesses have filed amicus briefs with the court. General Motors, headquartered in my district; Microsoft, and many other corporations in this country have filed briefs to say that a diverse workforce not only strengthens our companies and helps to increase the bottom line, but allows our workers to have the mix and experiences of not only their own ethnicity but those of others. So this is not the time, the corporations are saying, to turn the clocks back. As my colleague mentioned earlier, General Schwarzkopf and others, the highest elements in our military commands, have supported the university's admission policy. They are saying do not go back. The beauty of our Armed Forces, yes, as we fight today in two foreign lands, in Afghanistan and also in Iraq, keep the doors of opportunity open. These are generals, former generals in our armed services, who know that a diverse military is what best serves our country and they are supporting the University of Michigan's policy. We all need to be aware, too, that not only the young people who were here from all over the country, but the young students at the University of Michigan raised $50,000 themselves, sent 12 buses of their children, young people, to this Capitol of our United States. After the march, at noon, they had another rally where thousands of young people came and said, Congresswoman, we are here because we want the court to hear us. We want the court to know that we will do whatever is necessary to be the best that we can be, and we want the court to keep the opportunity for doors to be open so that we can raise our children to have the best opportunities in life, so they can be the best citizens they can be, and we believe an education is the key to that. As was mentioned, I am a graduate of the University of Michigan. The two cases before the Supreme Court, one for the undergraduate school, talks about a point system. There is a base of 150 points that can be had. A student needs 100 points to be considered for admission. At least 80 of those points they get from scholastic ability, from middle school right through high school, with the SAT scores. So 80 points of that 150 can come from the academic achievements from middle school right through the high school experience. Then there are about 15 other categories, my colleagues, where other points can be had. For instance, if someone had a father or a grandfather go to the university, they get what is called legacy points. If a student is from Michigan and they live in the upper peninsula, they get a certain number of points. If they are from a socioeconomic background that is low and they need help, they get points. If they are an athlete, they can also get points to add to that. If they are from a minority class, African American, Asian American, Latino American, or Native American, they can get points. It is amazing to me, with those few that I mentioned and at least 10 others, why are we singling out the ethnicity of that category? Why not the legacy points? Why not if a student lives in an underrepresented county, like the upper peninsula? This is not the time now to put the race card in American society. We have our hands full just keeping the doors of opportunity open for all our institutions of higher learning. This is not a time to confuse our young people by telling them, yes, you can go fight on the front line, but, no, you cannot go to the university. Something is inherently wrong with that. And what those beautiful students and young people said last Tuesday was, no, America, no, Supreme Court, do not take our country back. Let us move forward in the greatness that this country is. I had an opportunity to sit in the Court last Tuesday. It was a wonderful experience. The young people were also there in the Court, those who could get in, and we heard the arguments on both sides. We know now that the Supreme Court will be deliberating, some say June, some say right through the end of this session, which will be later on in October-November when the Court is finished before we get our decision. What we need people to do now, who believe that America should be open for its citizens, for all citizens, that the public universities of this country should not be closed, that the military opportunities should not be shut down, that corporate America continues to grow and expand and create work environments that all people from all backgrounds can participate in, if they believe in a just and open America, we need them to fax, to e-mail, to write and to call the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Those nine justices will be determining in the next several months whether the admissions policy should be upheld or if it should not be. So those who are listening tonight, and we are happy that we are able as the Congressional Black Caucus to bring the information to them, they should let their voices be heard. They need to speak out through fax, e-mail, writing or calling and let the justices know. This is the greatest country in the world. We want to maintain that. Education is the key to that. Young people have stood up to say that we are here on the steps of the Supreme Court to ask our Court, our justices, to keep justice in America. Keep the doors open. I am very proud of the young people. I want them to know that many years ago, during the 1960s civil rights movement, I was one of those students. Speak out against injustice. Our Constitution allows us to demonstrate and to assemble when we think something is wrong. Some countries do not have that opportunity. The University of Michigan is a fine university, as are universities all over the country. What happens with this decision in the Supreme Court will determine what kind of country we live in in the next 10, 20, 30 years of this country. Stand up America. I thank the young people, and continue the struggle because it is young people who must keep America strong, and it is you who must have the opportunity to raise, defend, and build your families. God bless you. We are so proud of you. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor and privilege to address the floor this evening and acknowledge the efforts of the young people from throughout our Nation who mobilized to travel to Washington, DC to demonstrate in support of the ideals associated with affirmative action and the historic cases being considered by the Supreme Court regarding the University of Michigan admission policies for the law school and the undergraduate program. I am especially pleased to commend the efforts of the students who traveled from Michigan to demonstrate their support for, and commitment to the University's affirmative action policies. The efforts of U of M were particularly gratifying to me. I am an alumnus of the University. I am a witness to the virtues of affirmative action policies enacted by U of M. On April 1, on the steps of the Supreme Court, I was also a witness to the assemblage of people from around the country, but especially from the great State of Michigan who braved the elements and other obstacles to form a coalition believers and supports of affirmative action. I am personally aware of the sacrifices the students made to come to Washington, DC. The students were responsible for raising over $50,000 and bringing 12 buses of students. The shining faces and fervent voices of the students were a sight to behold. Their efforts were a testament to the importance of preserving affirmative action, and a message to the Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing. I salute the students and pledge to them I will continue to fight on behalf of affirmative action. Finally, I offer my heartfelt thanks to each and everyone of them for joining the coalition of black, brown, yellow, red and white supporters of affirmative action.