Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for maintaining the Committee on Appropriations' constitutional right to appropriate, and for oversight, both to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and to our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for making sure that our constitutional rights as appropriators is preserved under this supplemental. I rise in strong support of the supplemental, our troops, our men and women in the military who are fighting to support this country's and around the world's freedom. I rise also to support the Obey amendment that was not made in order. We must protect our homeland. We must protect our hometowns. And as was mentioned earlier in the chart displayed by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this supplemental does not do that yet, and we will have another opportunity in the 2004 budget and I hope we will do that. I represent probably the largest body of water, of international waterway, in this country. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border in this country, where a billion and a half commercial products cross that border every day; 40,000 businesses have trucks with hazmat materials on them. Three million people drive those trucks. And we must make sure that our homeland is protected, and we need this homeland money so that our local communities, our targeted communities, can have those dollars we need to protects our citizens, not just at the ports but around this country. And this supplemental does not do it. And I hope we will do it in our 2004 budget as we move forward to do that. It is so important that we speak out to let Americans know that as we appropriate their tax dollars, we are not only taking care of Afghanistan, Iraq, helping with our other foreign allies, but we are doing what is necessary so that their children can be safe in their own homes, so that the mayors can have the resources they need. It is so important. And I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for bringing it to the floor in such a timely manner. This is a good supplemental at this time, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I rise today to support H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2003. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am proud of the work that the committee was able to produce and thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey, as well as Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for their continued leadership. Our nation is in a time of unparalleled needs. We are waging a war against Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are fighting a war on terrorism, while at the same time needing to respond to the needs to protect our homeland. This supplemental reflects what is at stake. The supplemental includes $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism. As an appropriator and a member of the United States Congress, let me say that I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the equipment and resources necessary that will ensure their safety and their ability to mount an effective opposition in Iraq, that will ensure a successful and hopefully an expeditious end to military action. Let me state the utmost respect and admiration I have for our men and women in uniform and that my thoughts and prayers go out to all of them and their families during their difficult times. I am also proud that this bill does not reflect the blanket check that the Administration originally sought, that would have created new accounts and provided the Administration with programming authority, without congressional oversight. I do not believe in writing blanket checks. As a Member of Congress and a member of the appropriations committee, I feel our role is more important than being just a bank. If we are to be successful in our important missions, Congress needs to be involved and be assured a say in how, where and to whom our money is going. I am happy that Members on both sides of the aisle were able to work together to ensure that Members retain congressional oversight during these important times. While I support this important supplemental, it is not without certain reservations. First, this bill does not go far enough in providing the sufficient funds needed to protect our homeland. We have vital, unmet needs that need to be responded to effectively. We had a chance to do right, but the Republicans, unfortunately, have blocked an amendment by Congressman Obey that would have provided for $2.5 billion in additional funds for our homeland security needs. These additional funds would have allowed us to address important issues, such as: increasing port security; protecting federal dams and waterways from terrorist attacks; protecting important food and medical equipment; strengthening the security of nuclear materials at home and abroad; and strengthening U.S. laboratories' ability to cope with a chemical attack. I represent the 13th District of Michigan, which contains the largest international commercial border in the nation, with $1.5 billion in goods coming into our country every day. The City of Detroit has also been named as one of 10 cities likely to be targeted for a terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, our security needs are immense here at home and we need to act responsibly. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of irresponsibility that could have adverse consequences. These additional funds would have allowed government agencies to respond to the unmet needs that our nation's safety requires. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of irresponsibility and we are shortchanging, plain and simple. Mr. Chairman, the American people look to us to do the job of the people and to protect and safeguard our homeland. It is time that our words and intentions are reflected in the amount of funds that we appropriate in the name of homeland security. Finally, I also question the amount of funding we are providing for reconstruction and humanitarian needs in Iraq--$2.48 billion. With the war that presumably could last for weeks, maybe longer, the humanitarian needs and reconstruction needs will be great.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of our troops and our families. Mr. Speaker, at this moment my prayers and thoughts are with the service men and women who are braving the fierceness of battle in the deserts of Iraq. My best wishes are with them and their families for a safe return home. I have no doubt that they will be victorious in their undertaking and perform their duties honorably and bravely. I have a particularly soft spot in my heart for the service men and women serving in Michigan's National Guard and reserve units that are now activated to duty. They are providing a myriad of services and tasks on behalf of the war effort and in service to our nation. The politics of war should stop when the first shot is fired and when the men and women who make up our armed forces move into the field of battle. Some Members in this chamber have taken exception to the Administration's handling of the Iraq crisis, and I include myself among those who have had strong reservations about our road to war. If this were a simple resolution expressing our support and best wishes for the safe return of our troops, it would have my complete and unquestioning support. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will do everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the equipment and resources necessary to ensure their safety and support their families. But I have strong reservations about the course of action that took us into our present state of war. My position on this war has been plainly clear since the beginning, when the Administration first proposed using preemptive action against Iraq. I supported working through the United Nations and our allies and using all diplomatic means possible to disarm Saddam Hussein. I do not feel that the President stayed true to this path and exhausted all diplomatic means available. Therefore, I could not in good, moral conscious, vote ``yes'' for this resolution because it represents an affirmation of the policy of pre-emption. I strongly disagree with the application of a pre-emptive doctrine. It is counter to our values as a democratic nation and our American tradition. Now that we are committed, our troops are bound to perform their mission effectively and destroy the Iraqi war machine. As they pursue their objective, they will encounter many perils as the war follows its course. I share with the President the wish that their job will be completed swiftly so that they will soon be returning home to their loved ones.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and in support of the CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets. I didn't think a budget resolution could be much worse than the one produced by the Majority, but then I see the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. This amendment calls for more tax cuts and more cuts in nondefense and non-homeland security spending. Like the parent resolution offered by the Majority leadership, the budget cuts called for in the gentleman's alternative are just unrealistic. In fact, the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposed by the gentleman's alternative, requires that domestic spending be cut by an additional $8 billion. The budgets proposed by Republican Study Conference and the Majority leadership will force authorizing committees' to reduce eligibility requirements and benefits for people programs that service our children, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more. Like the parent resolution, the RSC amendment provides more tax cuts for the wealthy that are bound to continue to take our economy down the glide path of additional deficits. What I don't understand is why our distinguished majority rightly calls on all Americans to support the war effort in Iraq, but is not willing to pay for its costs. That is a major disconnect. The Democratic and CBC alternative budgets offer targeted tax cuts that are designed to stimulate the economy and produce real jobs. Up to a million jobs will be produced by the Democratic Alternative in 2003. The Majority's plan, on the other hand, creates only 190,000 jobs in 2003. The CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets provide more money for Medicare prescription drugs. The Democratic Alternative sets aside $528 billion in new money for a prescription drug program. We deliver and the President's party doesn't. The Democratic Alternative and Black Caucus budgets invest in education and training. These increases will enable Congress to increase funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' The Democratic and CBC Alternatives protect our men and women in war; they advance the security needs of our homeland; they increase our investment in human capital and the nation's infrastructure. And they do so in a fiscally responsible way. Soon we will be asked to redevelop and rebuild Iraq. We will be asked to pass appropriations that will develop and modernize that country's health care delivery system, repair and build 3,000 miles of major thoroughfares; upgrade the country's maritime ports, build classrooms and provide student supplies; provide 20,000 units of housing; rebuild the country's financial system; establish a potable water delivery system; and more. It is ironic that this administration and the majority party in this Chamber will be asking us to spend billions to invest in redeveloping the infrastructure in Iraq while it simultaneously cuts back our investment in American cities, states and individual human capital. The Members on the other side of the aisle may be able to explain that to their constituents, but I know I won't be able to explain it to mine. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment and support the CBC and Democratic Alternatives budget resolutions.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as we are now unfortunately engaged in an assault on Iraq, I pray for the safety of our American servicemen and women engaged in that military campaign and hope for their safe return. As we debate this budget resolution to fund programs for the defense and investment in our country I am very troubled by the harmful consequences for the budget cuts called for in this document. This budget resolution partially reflects our current priority to protect the men and women of our fighting forces. It is only a partial measure because we need to see the supplemental appropriations request before we really know what the defense budget is. Looking beyond defense, this resolution is a travesty to the Americans who live within these borders. High priority programs like Medicaid, education, veterans benefits, federal employee pension benefits, prescription drug benefits, law enforcement, food stamps are targeted under this budget resolution. The majority says the cut backs total represent a 1 percent across- the-board cut. But because the Republican budget mirrors the President's request for defense, they impose a 2.9 percent cut on nondefense spending. This is a guns and caviar budget. The budget resolution says these cuts will come from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. That's hogwash; it cannot be found. The resolution instructs the authorizing Committees to do the dirty work. The Committees will be asked to pony up $470 billion in direct spending program cuts over 10 years. When measured against a 10-year mandatory spending projection of $15.6 trillion that amounts to a 3 percent cut. The only way to accommodate a cut of this magnitude is to cut benefit levels or restrict eligibility for benefits for human service programs that service our children, elderly, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more. This budget could push nearly half a million poor children out of child nutrition programs. In the field of health care, the Republican budget does not provide any significant funding for a Medicare Prescription Drug Program--only $28 billion. With that, you might be able to provide every senior with a bottle or two of aspirin each year. The Resolution doesn't tell Congress to specifically cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide a prescription drug program. It tells the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees to do the dirty work. So if the Republicans want to deliver on their promise of a $400 billion prescription drug program, the two committees will have to find a combined total of $372 billion in program cuts. Under this budget resolution seniors lose out in two ways. They get little or no prescription drug benefit and they will see their coverage under Medicare and Medicaid reduced. They will lose out because here are the options available for getting to the numbers called for in the Republican budget resolution: Cut physician reimbursement by a third, saving $215 billion. If we go that route, it will only encourage doctors to stop seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients. Eliminate hospital payments for medical education and cost of uncompensated care, saving $200 billion. That will be devastating to urban hospitals in Detroit and other inner cities, which are on the brink of financial collapse as it is. Terminate home health benefits under Medicare. That will yield $207 billion. Or do away with skilled nursing home benefits . . . that will save $187 billion. We can save $51 billion by taking health care services away from 5.3 million low income kids under the State Children Health Insurance Program. This is a resolution that says to the wealthy, you don't have to pay the cost of this war against Iraq. We'll give the bill to seniors, children, disabled Americans, the sick, the hungry and to generations not yet born. There is no sacrifice being asked of those who can afford it the most. Make no mistake about it. The $382 billion dividend tax cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy. It most benefits those who financially benefit the most in our society. And that's not just my view. It's a view point shared by the Disabled American Veterans. Ed Heath, National Commander of the DAV, says--and I quote--``Cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is undefensible and callous.'' I have been critical of the President's budget and foreign policies. Why, after all, are we conducting a war that we are not willing to pay for. The President is sending a message that we can extend our global military reach without any sacrifice and still afford a tax cut that will largely benefit the top one percent of Americans. This budget document echoes what the Administration has been saying: ``We can have it all.'' Well, we can't have it all if it means breaking a contract with federal workers by cutting their pension health benefits; if it means breaking the contract that we have with our seniors to cut back on Medicaid and Medicare health coverage; if it means reneging on a promise to provide seniors with a meaningful prescription drug benefit; if it turns our back on disability benefits and health care for our veterans; if it means denying opportunities to our children by cutting back on health programs, Head Start, and Pell Grants. This budget resolution is nothing but a series of broken promises. All the alternatives being considered today represent a better way, and I am going to support them. With an America at war, we need to act with some fiscally responsibility. The Republican budget does not meet that test. This budget benefits the investment class with a dividend tax cut at the expense of programs that serve everyday Americans. It divides us as a country and worsens our economic position.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is the Republican's quick fix to the health care crisis across the nation. They address the problem of increased insurance cost for medical malpractice, but have proposed a contorted theory for fixing it. An in-depth look at H.R. 5 shows that it does absolutely nothing to implement ways to decrease insurance premium costs, and furthermore, it does initiate means to increase the availability of medical malpractice insurance. For the foregoing reasons, I voted ``no'' on this passage. H.R. 5 will limit the amount of non-economic damages that a patient can recover in a malpractice suit and it sets a bar for punitive damage recovery that is nearly impossible to reach. Overall, this bill limits the amount of recovery for all patients by providing a one-size-fits- all solution. How can we limit what a jury can award to an individual who has lost her/his right to reproduce because of a doctor's or medical manufacturer's negligence? How can we limit damage awards to an individual who has been paralyzed as a result of their negligence? How can we set a standard that is so difficult to meet that it will reduce the opportunity that plaintiffs will have to punish these defendants for their malicious acts? H.R. 5 is moving away from fixing the crisis in our health care industry and leaning towards making it worse by essentially punishing the victims. Mr. Speaker, we need a bill that acts fast to help doctors and the medical industry sustain themselves financially. Right now, as we debate H.R. 5, thousands of doctors are leaving their respective states because they cannot afford the high insurance premiums. Doctors are now taking on much heavier loads of patients, much more than some of them can handle. To such as extent, some say that their situation is ripe for potential negligence cases, as they are not able to devote the attention necessary for the patient. They need our help now, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot change their situation by selling unfounded limits on non-economic damages. Additionally, we must work to curb rogues from bringing fraudulent malpractice claims that flood our courtrooms, which are factored into the issue of high insurance premiums. For example, we should not prohibit a justified victim from receiving $750,000 in non-economic damages, but rather, we should aim to deter those rogues from each bringing fraudulent claims for non-economic damages worth $250,000. H.R. 5 does not provide for any differentiation between legitimate claims and the many unwarranted claims that bring a halt to judicial economy every day. The Democratic substitute is superior because it would have sought and punished rogues for bringing fraudulent cases. It would not have capped non-economic damages or punitive damages. The substitute commissioned a study to assess the medical malpractice issue and determine how we can better address and then eliminate the problem. As for the current crisis, the substitute would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide grants to geographic areas that experienced extreme shortages of health providers due to the high premiums. Although the Democratic substitute was superior for this crisis situation, the Republicans used their control of the House to prevent the substitute from being brought to the floor for a debate, along with any amendments that Democrats would have offered. This is undemocratic and an irresponsible use of leadership. The House floor is where all members should have the opportunity to discuss various ideas, views or bills from both sides of the aisle. To preclude that possibility is undemocratic. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Republicans regulation of this very important issue and I also vehemently disagree with H.R. 5.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for continuing to be in the forefront of this issue. God loves her for it; and as we work together to build a better world, this is certainly one of the most important issues that we will face in our lifetime. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am acutely aware, as most of the Members of the Congress are, what a tight budget we have this year and as we move into the next few years as we send our troops off in Afghanistan currently, soon to be Iraq with North Korea another possible war target. It is important, I believe, that as we do all of this, and I want to commend President Bush for making the statement in his State of the Union address, that we will spend more resources to fight HIV and AIDS. As most everyone knows in the world, the pandemic is spreading. Africa today, India, former Soviet Union, China, and right here in our own country, unprecedented numbers of people being infected with HIV and AIDS. So I am happy to commend President Bush on taking the first step as the leader of the free world to really begin to address the problem. Is it enough? No, it is not enough. We need to do better. We need to do more, and that is what we are talking about tonight, how we do more. It is not always money. When you are the leader of the world, you can do a lot of things that can help poor countries and other countries of the world. We can make it possible for generic drugs to be used in poor countries; and as was mentioned earlier, if the United States would step forward and sign an agreement that the World Trade Organization put forth, many of those poor countries could use generic drugs and would be able to treat the hundreds of thousands of people who are infected with HIV and AIDS; and I urge the President to come forward to work with the World Trade Organization to make sure that those pharmaceuticals are available for the poorest of the poor so they may treat themselves, save their families, and protect their children. It is most important, Mr. President; and I hope he will work in that vein. The gag rule that was mentioned, the gag rule, for those who do not know, is a rule put on some of our appropriations that says any country that teaches family planning may not be a recipient of the funds that have already been appropriated. Many of us think that is wrong. Family planning is just what it is; and many countries in the world, we of the United States and other countries of the world, help people to plan their families so they can live within the means that they have. By our putting the gag rule on the funds that will come forward for HIV and AIDS, it says that many of the countries will not be able to access those funds. We believe that the funds ought to be available for those countries, the poorest of the poor, who are infected, in this case, with HIV and AIDS; that the family services ought to be integrated. We have already heard that when the services are integrated, more people come and take part in those services and not just be treated with one illness, but may also have tuberculosis, may also have malaria, HIV. So then we are able to treat the entire illnesses of the people, and I hope that the President will reconsider and take the gag rule off his initiative for treating and helping with the AIDS pandemic. We can also relax and expand the rules for HiPC countries, the highly indebted poor countries of Africa. They cannot partake of this initiative because we need to expand who can participate. It would mean that some of those countries would have to match the dollars in some instances; but many have told me, and the president of Uganda, one of leaders in the world in treating and reducing the HIV pandemic, that they are ready, willing, and able to work with this country, but they need help. They need our leaders to free them up so that they can access and treat more people. From the generic drugs, making those available, that is one way we can help. Sometimes it is not always the money. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But we as the leaders of the world can do other things that will assist in those poor countries. AIDS, HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, we fund those lines for countries all over the world. Why then in this initiative must we take money from the programs that are working well, the malaria, the tuberculosis program? We do not want to subtract money from those to give to HIV. We want to make it a partner with our HIV dollars, not to rob Peter to pay Paul, but to make that as one pot of money so we can treat all of those and put the dollars in that are necessary. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But it is not always the money. There are other things that we can do to help. We can help by making it possible for some of the countries to be able to cancel their debt. In some instances 30, 40, 50 percent of the revenue of a country is used to cancel the debt. At a time when resources are low, at a time when countries are poor, we as leaders of the free world need to find a way that we can make arrangements to cancel some of that debt so those resources can be used to treat their own people in their own country. And I tell the President if he would stand up and make that a fact, work out some arrangements so some of the debt can be cancelled, those dollars then could be put back in those countries to treat the pandemic so we do not have to always use U.S. dollars. There is a way to address the problem. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But it is not always the money. Many times it is leadership. I want to commend President Bush for what he has already done, but I want him to know, and this Congress to know, there is much more that we can do. Make the generic drugs available, help with canceling the debt that the countries have, make sure that we get rid of and eliminate the gag rule that is not making it possible for some people to access the money. In United States today, Africa, India, China and several other countries of the world, this is a real pandemic. Our role and our rule ought to be as responsible leaders in this community, leaders of the world, all 535 of us. What else can we do to relieve the illnesses, to break it down so that so many children will not be orphaned, so that so many families will not be left with nothing? There are things we can do, and it is not always the money. I contend that if we just did three of the things I mentioned today, cancelling the debt, the use of generic drugs, as well as making sure the gag rule does not stifle and eliminate those who need treatment, it would help. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But let us stand up and work together, Mr. President, with you. We are ready, we are willing and we are able. We just count on you to lead our country in this pandemic crisis that we see. HIV and AIDS is not going away. Family planning is a necessity. We need to work to integrate the services so that our families can be strong, so that our children can grow and live and have an intact family, and that we move forward as a United Nations of all of God's people. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate National Peace Corps Day on February 28, 2003 and to commend the organization and its volunteers for the important work they do around the world. Since 1961, more than 168,000 Americans have taken part in this important mission to volunteer in 136 countries. This mission is important on many levels. The idea of the Peace Corps began in my home State of Michigan when John F. Kennedy, campaigning for President, proposed the concept in October of 1960 to a group of college students in Ann Arbor. He wanted to see how many of them would be interested in volunteering in developing countries to help in their progress and development. In March of 1961, the Peace Corps was established through an executive order signed by President Kennedy. Today, more than 40 years later, the Peace Corps remains a vital government program that helps to forge strong ties with other countries and to promote global peace. Peace Corps volunteers give much of themselves during their assignment, and on a human level, there can be no greater service than helping to improve and making a positive difference in the lives of others. As a result of Peace Corps volunteer efforts, the ties between American citizens and those in host countries grow and remain strong long after the Peace Corps assignment has concluded. I know of no Peace Corps volunteer who has returned unchanged or unmoved by the positive work they have performed and the wonderful people they have met. In my district, currently four volunteers are participating in the Peace Corps. They include: Ms. Kathryn L. Donahue placed in Lesotho; Mr. Brent J. Hayduk in the Ukraine; Ms. Maureen A. Magee in Gambia; and Mr. Seth W. Pickens in Haiti. I am so proud of them and the other volunteers across our nation. To all volunteers, past, present, and future, I say thank you for your dedication and for the honor you all bring to our country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today, I voted against passage of H.R. 4, the Welfare Reform Reauthorization. I opposed passage of the bill last session and today for the same reasons. First, the Republican bill has weak educational opportunities for welfare recipients, it places unfunded mandates on States, and implements stricter requirements without taking into account increases for inflation. This puts States in a very compromising position. Furthermore, this bill only includes $1 billion in additional funding over five years for childcare. It is general knowledge that there is insufficient money provided for childcare to meet the current needs of our nation. Moreover, the Republican bill places harsher work requirements on mothers with young children, without providing for a sufficient increase in childcare funding. How are families to cope? Additionally, the Republican bill is only concerned about the numbers looking good on paper. The majority points to the success of the reduction of welfare rolls with the Welfare Reform Law of 1996; however, they fail to take into account the number of welfare recipients that have moved off the welfare rolls straight into low- income, minimum wage jobs. Many families still must rely on government assistance to stay afloat. Their measure of success is terribly flawed. Providing government assistance to needy families should not be based on unlimited assistance--this is something that those of us on both sides of the aisle can agree on. However, this bill should be directed at providing fair and meaningful assistance that will help lift families out of poverty. This objective is at the heart of both the Kucinich and Cardin Substitutes that I supported. Both of these alternatives to H.R. 4 put a greater emphasis on educational opportunities and programs--an approach that would ensure that families are able to move up the economic ladder. Without the opportunity to learn a trade or pursue post-secondary educational options, the outlook for families being able to move off of welfare and improve their economic status is bleak. Welfare reform should include policies that provide real solutions to helping families leave and stay off of welfare. Helping families to succeed is the Democratic approach--and the right approach. If we fail to enact policies that give families a real chance to create a better life, we fail families and we fail children.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, personal business required me to return to the district this evening before the House considered votes on legislative business for which the ``yeas and neas'' were ordered. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: Rollcall No. 24 (H.R. 346), The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, ``yea''; rollcall No. 25 (H. Res. 62), A resolution recognizing Vietnam prisoners of war, ``yea''; and on rollcall No. 26, H.R. 395, The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, ``yea.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the gaming industry has broadened its exposure over on-line and wireless communications networks. People do not have to go to casinos in Las Vegas, Reno, Detroit, Atlantic City or other gaming sites to gamble. They can play games of chance over the Internet from the privacy of their own homes. According to one financial analysis, Internet gambling is a $1 billion industry and is forecasted to grow to $5 billion by 2005. There are nearly 1 million paying users of the largest network games and free sweepstakes sites which are among the most popular Internet destinations. Many of the network gaming sites originate from offshore websites, and are beyond the reach of States and local authorities, even those authorities that prohibit Internet gaming in their jurisdictions. Local and state governments devote few resources to regulate or enforce laws against network gaming. No protections exist to ensure the integrity of the game, protection from minors seeking to patronize games, or protection from excessive financial loss. Therefore, network gaming continues with very little regulation and with very few guarantees that the games of chance or sweepstakes one finds on internet sites are above board. The Consumer Protection for On-line Games Act, which I am introducing today, will allow U.S. consumers to know if the games they are playing are fraudulent. The bill will permit U.S. consumers to participate in online games with the security of knowing they are playing from a straight deck of cards. Specifically, the bill proposes the following: 1. Establishes the Federal Trade Commission as the agency responsible for monitoring games of chance offered on the Internet or wireless network. 2. Prohibits network game operators subject to U.S. law from making false or misleading claims regarding the fairness of such games. 3. Requires self-regulatory organizations to comply with specific minimum requirements. 4. Specifies that States must notify the FTC when it brings action against a network game provider and allows the FTC to intervene in any action brought on by the state and file petitions for appeal. I know feelings run strong on both sides of the gaming question. It is a policy area with which I have some issues. The fact exists, however, that gaming websites are available for everyone's entertainment. It is my hope that this legislation will prevent present and future abuses and reduce the incidence of fraud. America has a chance to become a leader in this emerging global industry, but we presently lag behind other countries which are dealing honestly and openly with the issue of on-line gaming. I hope that Congress will seriously study this proposal and raise the level of debate on this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this measure as it travels through the legislative process.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I regret that Congress did not pass an extension of unemployment benefits last year. Last November, the other body passed a bill that cost $5 billion and would have provided 13 weeks of additional UI benefits to jobless Americans. The House passed a paltry bill that cost $900 million that would have extended benefits only through the end of January. I'm delighted that this bill is closer to the one that was proposed by the Democrats in the other body last year. The bill we are considering today costs $7.6 billion and it extends unemployment benefits through the end of May. It gives an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to jobless Americans who have exhausted their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. I am pleased that the bill is retroactive to December 28, so that those who had their benefits cut off on this date would receive the remainder of the 13 weeks owed to them. Even though the bill is an improvement over last year's attempt, it is not enough. The bill excludes from coverage one million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and who have not found a job. These people will not be eligible for the extended benefits proposed under this bill, and they need our help. But this bill slams the door shut on their need for extended benefits. This action should come as no surprise. The majority has consistently voted to exclude segments of the unemployed from receiving jobless benefits. Although the majority has changed the scope of coverage of the bill, it has not had a change of heart. At a time when we need national unity, the majority party continues to pit Americans against their fellow Americans. The economic policies of this Administration and the majority party of this chamber pits the well-off against the not-so-well off, working Americans against the jobless, and the jobless with benefits against those without. While I support the passage of S. 23, I encourage my colleagues to support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott. We can do more to assist those 1 million unemployed Americans who need our help, and we should take this opportunity to do so.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, small, disadvantaged businesses have been denied access to prominent contracting and subcontracting opportunities across the spectrum of industry. Many entrepreneurs and small businesses have either been hurt or put out of business by the gross disparity between procurement opportunities they receive and those received by large, majority owned businesses. In response to this inequity, former President Clinton enacted an executive order in October 2000 to improve the situation and rectify the inequity. The executive order's sole focus was to increase opportunities and access for disadvantaged businesses in relation to Federal procurement opportunities. According to the executive order, each department and agency with procurement authority was to aggressively seek to ensure that small disadvantaged businesses, minority business enterprises and other types of small businesses were intimately involved in prime contracting opportunities. The underlying premise of the order was to contribute to a reduction of inequality within the realm of Federal procurement opportunities. I want to codify former President Clinton's executive order specifically as it relates to Federal advertising contracts. My goal is to ensure that minority business concerns engaged in the advertising industry have ample Federal advertisement procurement opportunities. In addition, the legislation pinpoints minority business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as businesses in drastic need of increased participation in Federal advertising procurement opportunities. The advertising industry is an ever-expanding industry that exposes many products and services to a growing and diverse nation. There are more than 21,000 advertising agencies engaged in the business and thousands more that want to become engaged in the advertising industry. However, for various reasons, many smaller and disadvantaged businesses have found it difficult to obtain advertising contracts, particularly large Federal government contracts. This bill will eradicate the inequity by facilitating the following: 1. Aggressively seeking to ensure that minority business concerns are aware of the Federal advertising procurement opportunities by using the most effective forms of communication, including the Internet, specialty press and trade press; 2. Ensuring that procurement authorities will work with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to make sure that eligible small business concerns receive information regarding the contracts; 3. Ensuring that the price evaluation preference programs authorized by Section 7102 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 are used to the maximum extent when granting Federal advertising contracts to minority business concerns; 4. Requiring that contractors meet the commitments required by this legislation and other related laws (i.e., Small Business Act); and 5. Ensuring that contracts involving commitments with minority business concerns include clauses that address the assessment of liquidated damages when commitments are not met. I sincerely hope that Congress will consider the positive effect of this bill not only for minority business concerns, but also for the betterment of the advertising industry in general. This bill can cure an ill that has plagued the advertising industry for a long time. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this issue with my many colleagues in Congress.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, personal business requires my presence in the district. Had I been present for today's legislative business I would have cast my votes as follows: ``nay'' on rollcall No. 5, on ordering the previous question during consideration of H. Res. 14; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 6, on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 7, S. 23, the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Extension Act; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 8, on ordering the previous question during consideration of H. Res. 15; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 9, the motion to adjourn; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 10 on the motion tabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 11 on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12 on passage of H. Res. 10, a resolution congratulating the Ohio State University Buckeyes football team.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, when this Chamber considered predecessor legislation, H.R. 5005, last July, I voted against its passage. As I have looked over the conference agreement reached with the other body, I do not see where this bill represents a significant difference over the original product. Therefore, I voted against the conference agreement for similar reasons that justified my vote on the bill. Let me say to my colleagues that I support the concept of a Department of Homeland Security. But the concept as transformed into H.R. 5005 is a good idea turned into a really bad legislation. This bill divides the government from those who serve it--government employees. The 170,000 employees who will be incorporated into this new Department will be denied job protections that cover most all federal employees, even those under the Department of Defense. Under this bill, the President can strip employees of their union representation if the agency's mission or division they work for material changes, or if a majority of the employees within that unit work primarily with intelligence, counterintelligence or investigations related to terrorism. The Department would also be free to totally ignore employee or bargaining representative grievances of proposed changes in pay systems and personnel rules. The personnel rules do not promote good management; they do not promote good government practices. In Election 2000, President Bush campaigned on the promise that he was a ``uniter, not a divider.'' Now we see what an empty promise he has made of that campaign pledge. This bill will do much to divide government from its own federal workforce. Another shortcoming of the bill is that it exempts manufacturers of anti-terrorism technology from liability. Proponents of this provision say it will make America safer. I say it only rewards corporate irresponsibility--a policy that our President and the loyal opposition seems to embrace. Mr. Speaker, this is seriously flawed legislation, and that is why I cast my vote against the bill's passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lee amendment and as a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment asks what the American people want. They want us to work through the United Nations, work through that process, and I want to report and you all know the United Nations has said yes, we will work with you, we will go in, we will have unfettered inspections and we will work and come back. It is not an ``if'' kind of situation, it is an ``is.'' And the ``is'' is that the American people want the United Nations involved and they want the inspections to go forward and at a date determined to come back and report. Our CIA, our intelligence agency, has reported to this Congress and this Nation that there is no imminent threat that Saddam Hussein will attack America. He does not have the capability. Let the U.N. process work, and that is what the Lee amendment asks.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding the time and bringing the bill to the floor, some 20 plus months after the worst catastrophe in American history happened in our country. The right to vote and have that vote counted is the most sacred thing an American citizen can have, and this bill begins the process of rectifying the very bad past that we experienced in 2000. I want to commend the work of the committee. I want to work with my colleagues to see it implemented properly. I like the emphasis on high school and college students and voter education. On that, I want to work with the committee to see that literacy is addressed. Too many people in America cannot read or read between the 4th and 6th grade level. We have got to make sure that the election materials reach that population so that it can vote. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote for this bill and ask that we continue to do the things necessary so all people's vote count and all people who are registered can vote. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act. I also want to commend Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer for their hard work on this landmark legislation. In the aftermath of the 2000 election and the ensuing controversy that prevailed, it became abundantly clear that it was essential for our Nation to overhaul election administration processes. Our consideration of this act could not occur at a more favorable time because the specter of possible voter fraud, voter disenfranchisement and ballot confusion remain. H.R. 3295 authorizes $3.9 billion over 3 years to help States replace punch card and lever voting machines to improve the administration of elections. As we prepare for mid-term elections, once again the political stakes are high. H.R. 3295 is important legislation because its enactment will enable voters to check for and correct ballot errors in a private and independent manner. The act will also ensure that legitimate voters will not be turned away from the polls. Furthermore, H.R. 3295 requires that States maintain clean and accurate voter lists. As the Representative for the 15th Congressional District in Michigan, I am acutely aware of the vital importance of empowering every prospective voter. In the recent past, numerous black voters were disenfranchised due to the imposition of insidious practices designed to prohibit voter participation. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter intimidation were employed successfully to thwart black voter participation. However, a new day has dawned and Americans can now look forward to the overhaul of election administration. I do, however, want to alert my colleagues to a concern I have about voter literacy, a problem that affects American voters. The average American reads on a 4th to 6th grade level. Therefore, it is imperative that we take steps to ensure that voting instructions and materials accommodate the literacy level of the average American. I am pleased that the conference report includes provisions to make voting sites accessible to persons with disabilities, and it affirms the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nonetheless, I continue to have reservations about the potential for voter disenfranchisement. As a former educator, I recognize the importance of reading and comprehending written material. I refer my colleagues to the provision in the bill that authorizes a total of $3 billion over fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 that can be used in part to provide voter education. It is my hope that some part of those resources will be used to address voter literacy. I am pleased to support the conference report, and I am confident the provisions of the bill will usher in critical changes that will serve to enhance the legitimacy of our electoral process.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the 435 who serve in this body, and the 100 in the other body, will shortly cast the most important vote of our career, should we send our young men and women to war. It is a decision not to be taken lightly, and I highly respect both sides of the argument. But I stand here today with a heavy heart because I am not able to support the resolution before us. September 11, 2001, the most dastardly deed ever imagined on a people was committed in this country. The terrorist threat is alive and well. It ought to be the number one priority of this country, of this President, to root out terrorism, to make sure we bring the culprit who planned, organized, and attacked our Nation to justice. We have not done that. Nothing should divert us from that. There has been no intelligence, no information given to this Member, and I might add my ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that would say Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to America at this time. No information to the highest ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Does he have weapons? Can he harm? Yes, he can. The President went to the United Nations and spoke before 189 nations of the world not long ago, and the U.N. Security Council, which is composed of many countries, China, Russia, Germany, France and others, whose responsibility it is to act. And if a unilateral strike were necessary right now, do any of us believe that China, Russia, France, Germany, who are also a part of this world, would join with the United States? They have chosen not to do so. Therefore, that leaves the United States alone. Yes, we are the most powerful. Yes, this is a great country, and we want to remain that. I am very concerned that a unilateral first strike will upset the global economy, will upset the world. And what about the other 20-plus countries that have weapons of mass destruction? Can China then attack Taiwan? Can India then attack Pakistan? North Korea? South Korea? Where does it stop? The United States is the leader in the world, and we must show that leadership; and we do that by multilaterally acting with our allies, working together so we do not have the loss of 50,000, so that we will not have to spend $200 billion-plus of taxpayers' money, and so that we can then use it for health care and housing and prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I implore the American citizens to look at the issue and to get to their Congressperson and Senator. Yes, we have to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yes, we have to go after the weapons of mass destruction. But we are the leaders of the free world, and we have no allies with us on this first strike. We ought to ask some questions here. What will be the consequences in the Middle East when America makes this first strike? What will be the cost to the world? How many lives will be lost? What resources are we going to pledge as we strike and then as we rebuild that part of the world? What will happen with Iran and Saudi Arabia? Will they sit idly by? If we pass this resolution in October and not go to war until February or March, what will happen in the interim to American businesses all over the world? Will they be safe? I urge my colleagues to look at some of these questions. There is no plan. Attack and then what? We have not been given a plan for striking nor a plan for exiting. I think that is wrong. And as Members of Congress who have pledged to represent over 600,000 people apiece, we owe our constituents that answer, these very same constituents whose sons and daughters will be on the front line risking their lives in a war where there has not yet been proven to be an imminent threat to our country. Mr. Speaker, over the next several hours I ask my constituents to please listen to the comments of our colleagues. And, again, I respect both sides; but I think my constituents sent this Member here to represent and to report to them, and what I am reporting today is that there is no information, no intelligence presented that either this Member or our ranking member on our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our country today. Let the U.N. process work. Go in with unfettered inspections, and then let us make an intelligent response. Then multilaterally put the coalition together that we have to have to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. But then also invest in America to save our health care institutions, to build new schools. I am telling my colleagues, and America, to rise up, to speak out. The time is now.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, a flight delay prevented me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, October 7, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 3340, to allow certain catch-up contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan to be made by participants age 50 or over (rollcall No. 442); H.R. 5531, The Sudan Peace Act (rollcall No. 443); and H. Res. 468, The Transatlantic Security and NATO Enhancement Resolution of 2002 (rollcall No. 444).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 3009, the Fast Track Trade legislation that comes before us today. I do support trade agreements that will benefit all parties involved; however, the conference report that we consider today does not do this. It is a far departure of where I think we should be going in the direction of fair and equitable trade agreements. Everything that was positive was eliminated in conference and the result is a piece of legislation that will take us down a precarious, dangerous path for our nation. Specifically, my concerns lie with the workers that will be negatively affected by this open and free granting of negotiating authority for the President. While we look at Fast Track as a way to create new opportunities and jobs for many Americans and other workers overseas, it is completely irresponsible and heartless for Congress not to provide safeguards for those U.S. workers that will be negatively impacted. This is unacceptable and shows where our priorities really are. Saying ``yes'' to the conference report to the Fast Track legislation before us today is an anti-worker vote with too many implications that we cannot afford. Workers are the backbone of any company, but Fast Track would erode the rightful safeguards they are owed. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and health care protections are significantly weakened in the conference report. The tax credits included would not assist displaced workers, by forcing them to pay more for their health insurance. Moreover, there is no guarantee that workers who had health coverage for a only a couple of months, or had no health coverage at all, prior to losing their jobs would even be afforded assistance. And for those workers that belonged to companies who shifted their factories overseas, this bill basically says to them, ``tough luck for you.'' What kind of assistance are we providing them? This is not assistance, it's corporate maximization, and it's the workers that pay the price. Proponents of the trade agreement state that the conference report does indeed contain strong labor protections for U.S. workers; and that the provisions in the report are modeled after the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. That's simply not correct. The conference report falls short of the standards set in the Jordan FTA by excluding key commitments that deal with the incorporation of core labor standards in domestic law and the commitment to work towards the implementation and improvement of these laws. To state that the conference report affords strong labor protections is disingenuous. In addition to the unacceptable worker protections in the conference report, there are a long string of other dangerous provisions that would take us backwards in our dealings. First, the environment plays second fiddle, if not worse, to promoting trade. Instead of being a leader in this area and protecting and advancing our standards, the U.S. would promote poor environmental policy in the name of signing a ``good agreement.'' Congressional oversight in ensuring that trade agreements are sound policy is also completely diluted. The conference agreement adds two new restrictions on Congress' ability to withdraw fast track and denies Congress our right to ensure that the trade laws of our nation are not forsaken in trade agreements. On the other hand, foreign investors would be afforded even more rights than they have under current law. While Congress' rights are restricted, the rights of foreign investors are increased. This is a sell-out of the worst kind. This conference report gives the President and his Administration a blank check to sign away worker protections, environmental protections, Congressional oversight, and so much more. It's a check that we shouldn't let pass--it's a check that we should stamp with a big ``void.'' For these reasons, I oppose passage of the conference report to H.R. 3009. We can and should do much better.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise and I support the concept of a Department of Homeland Security, but I do not support this concept and let me tell you why. This concept allows 170,000 Federal employees to be transferred to an agency where they have no rights, a brand new personnel system where they do not have rights. They are not able to bargain collectively. They are not able to have certain rights and are subjugated to the whim of the Secretary. I rise in opposition because this bill defies the appropriations process set up in our Constitution of checks and balances. I oppose this bill because it eliminates the process, the Congress, the constitutional Congress, that allows our country to exist and to have checks and balances and appropriations process and employee rights that this legislation will take away in the name of terrorism. Yes, we need to do something but this is not the vehicle and I hope it will not pass. The Secretary can waive various paycheck schedules for these employees. He can move the employees at their whim, 170,000 employees who have dedicated much of their lives to this government. We need more time; there is no rest for this. Yes, the terrorism is bad. Yes, I believe the terrorists have won. Because what they have done is frighten Americans. We are a better Nation than that. We have an Army. We have people who are committed to this country. I believe it is our responsibility to reject this legislation and then come back and put the practical amendments, the practical balance that we need to make sure that citizens are safe and make sure that our employees have the rights that they deserve. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5005 because it eliminates the protections and rights of many Federal employees, violates fundamental rights under the Constitution, and defines a well- established appropriations process. These reasons make this a bad bill for the citizens of this nation. It takes away the fundamental rights that we hold dear. Black American has not enjoyed the fullness of America's Constitutional freedoms, as have most Americans. Black Americans have been explicitly and implicitly limited to many of our basic civil liberties and this bill will potentially further restrict. The limitations that we experience are even greater than most recent immigrants. Perhaps, that is why we tend to be more liberal in defense of them. Most American generations have enjoyed the freedoms inherent in the Constitution for nearly three hundred years. In the history of nations, that is a very long time. Since 9-11, Terrorists have frightened our nation, and now, we are afraid. For all of our braggadocio stands and speeches, we are afraid. Our fear is making us overwhelmingly passive to government propaganda and carelessly willing to sacrifice our liberties to those among us who are more than glad to take them. If we pass the Homeland Defense Act, as presently proposed, the terrorists will have won. The terrorists will have won because we would have destroyed our Constitutional democracy of checks and balances. This Constitutional innovation has stood us in good stead through our own Civil War, through two world wars, numerous undeclared wars, racial hostilities and a number of other internal and external conflicts. This massive war-like structure we are calling The Department of Homeland Defense will make the country vulnerable by weakening the very regulatory agencies that the last two hundred and fifty years has taught us that we need. By making the massive shifts of personnel and responsibilities of existing agencies to one Homeland Defense Department, focused exclusively on terrorism, we won't be able to tell whether 19 million pounds of tainted meat is the act of bio-terrorism or the result of corporate misfeasance. In 1930, France had the largest army in Europe. Watching the rise of fascism in neighboring Germany, they decided to construct an impenetrable defensive wall the entire 300 miles along the Franco- German border. Originally priced at 300 million francs, with only 82 miles completed, the cost had ballooned to 23 times the original budget. Ultimately, the cost of the Maginot Line consumed all of France's defensive budget leaving them with a military unprepared for the German blitzkrieg that ultimately defeated them six years later. This so-called, Homeland Defense Act, creates for us a bureaucratic Maginot Line, which can be circumvented by anyone who disrespects the rules of warfare which clearly is what terrorist do. The Germans defeated the inflexible Maginot Line by outflanking it. Using a concept of ``unrestricted warfare,'' the Germans, disregarded the neutrality and vulnerability of Switzerland and Belgium, went around the Maginot Line invaded and defeated France in six weeks. What makes the Department of Homeland Defense as vulnerable as the French of 1940 is the obviousness of it. The ideal target of unconscionable fanatics is anything that resembles static vulnerability. The best offense against terrorism is the stealth of intelligence. What we need to defend ourselves against terrorism is not another massive, inflexible department but exactly what this country does best. America has the ability to invent, innovate and diffuse its technological creations; and to build networks that multiply human intelligence. We can leave the departments exactly where they are and doing what they know how to do best. What we ought to do is build inside of all government departments, a responsive and flexible network of units, which can respond to any sort of threat--whether it is an act of terrorism, an accident, negligence or misfeasance. We need this flexibility so that the country does not exist in a permanent ``yellow'' state. We do need to multiply our intelligence capability one hundred--fold to coordinate our flex-defense network. I suspect that most Members of Congress are students of history or at least ``buffs.'' as I am. One of my greatest sources of current history is my eighty-three year old father--a Navy veteran of the Second World War. He often takes the time to give me an historical spin on what looks like something new. If the history of the Maginot Line is too distant and the analogy too abstract to be instructive, then we should look at a more recent event--The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That Resolution appealed to patriotism to respond to an ``unprovoked'' attack on American Naval forces off the coast of North Vietnam. The resolution gave the President the authority to escalate the war in Vietnam without further authority from Congress. The resolution passed unanimously in the House and with only Senators Morse (D-OR) and Gruening (D-AK) opposing. With the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times, in June and July of 1972, the American people learned that the CIA with the full knowledge of the President had contrived the incident at Tonkin. Only Congress can declare war. With the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Congress relinquished its Constitutional authority to declare war to the President. Fifty thousand American lives were lost in an undeclared war driven by an irrational rush to judgment motivated by anger and fear. In The Imperial President, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Arthur Schlesinger, traced the shifting of congressional powers to the President. Most often, these shifts occurred as the result of a belief that the country was in danger by either internal or external threats. Once the shift was made, Congress never retrieved its relinquished powers. The values and constitutional liberties of this nation are not only threatened by terrorists, but also, threatened by the possibilities of a federal government without proper checks and balances. For Black Americans, the latter threat is much more conceivable than the former. I want to see the nation combat these despicable terrorists acts, but not by completely centralizing the power of federal government, or trampling on our civil liberties, or not protecting federal employees rights. My conscious will not permit me to agree with this bill's construction of The Department of Homeland Defense. I will not agree with legislation to strip civil liberties. I will not agree with a contract that will deny workers of their rights and proper recourse for wrong done towards them. I will not be silent to the ills of this bill, even in the midst of a daunting and scary future, which has bred fear through us all. This bill would give a two-year authority to unilaterally transfer up to two percent of appropriations between department functions. This can be done with only 15 days of prior notice to Congress. There is an effective process to transfer funds with Congressional approval that works well. I will not support this bill, and hope that my colleagues too will understand what is at stake with the passage of this bill. I believe that we can construct a bill that will protect our employees' rights and will not violate proper appropriation procedure or our fundamental rights under the Constitution. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 5005.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Barr amendment, and to thank the chairman for agreeing to work with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and others as we go to conference to make sure that we do not stop this worthy program. Drugs in America is a cancer. We must do all we can to support our children. At the same time, we must make sure that our Federal dollars that have been appropriated are spent wisely. This company in question has padded their books, has been found guilty of $1.8 million overcharging the Federal Government. It is important that we monitor all of these contracts and that the moneys being used for advertising go to those communities where the most need is. It is important that the gentleman from Georgia has introduced this amendment. I look forward to working with him and the chairman and our ranking member and just to reiterate how important it is that as we spend these advertising dollars, we select those companies who have the same mission that we have, which is to make sure the advertising gets out correctly, that they do not pad their bills and mischarge the Federal Government and come back for further business. I stand in support of the gentleman's amendment barring payment of contracts to support a national media campaign to any company that has entered into a settlement to pay claims against it by the Federal Government. As far back as March of 1999, I began investigating the policies and procedures of awarding Federal advertising contracts. My investigation began with the advertising agency that had the ONDCP contract prior to the current agency that has settled with the government to pay 1.8 million dollars for padding vouchers. The amendment is necessary not only to prohibit funds to the current agency (Ogilvy & Mather) who padded their invoices and overcharged the government, but also because there are several large Federal Government advertising contracts where the same allegations are being made. The Army has an approximately $150 million annual advertising campaign to recruit and retain enlistees. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has launched an annual $125 million advertising campaign to combat obesity to target kids. Once awarded most government advertising contracts can be renewed for up to four additional years. Mr. Speaker, we must put a stop to the practice of blindly awarding government advertising contracts. In this era of corporate irresponsibility we must make corporations more accountable for their actions. We cannot allow taxpayer dollars to go to corporations that shortchange the American People. I urge a yes vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, district business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 22, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following roll call votes: H. Con. Res. 439, Honoring Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Founding of the Congressional Women's Caucus (Roll Call No. 324); and H. Res. 492, Expressing Gratitude for the World Trade Center Cleanup and Recovery Efforts at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York Following the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (Roll Call No. 325).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, district business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 15, 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act (rollcall No. 296); and H.R. 4755, the Clarence Miller Post Office Building Designation Act (rollcall no. 297). I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act (rollcall No. 298).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Representatives for bringing up H. Res. 452, a resolution that I, along with support from the entire Michigan delegation, introduced congratulating the Red Wings on a tremendous year that culminated in winning the 2002 Stanley Cup Championship. As a native Detroiter, I am so proud of the Red Wings for bringing the Stanley Cup back to the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan. They showed true heart, dominance, skill, and tenacity throughout regular and post-season play in the National Hockey League. More importantly, they showed all of us that anything is possible with hard work, determination, and a strong team spirit. The Red Wings are true champions. Thank you to head coach Scotty Bowman, who led the Red Wings to their third Stanley Cup under his leadership, with the back to back wins in 1997 and 1998. I wish, Mr. Bowman, ``the Winningest Coach in Hockey,'' all the best in his retirement and thank him for all that he has brought to this great sport. Congratulations to President and team owner Mike Ilitch and his wife, Marian, who have shown steadfast support for the team and the City of Detroit and have been owners of the Red Wings franchise since 1982. Their commitment to the team and the City rings true everyday. For all hockey fans out there and for anyone that knows even a little bit about hockey, clinching the Stanley Cup is no easy feat. The Red Wings went through four grueling playoff rounds and defeated four very competitive and skilled teams to win the Cup, including the 2001 Stanley Cup Championships, the Colorado Avalanche in the Western Conference finals, and the valiant Caroline Hurricanes in the Stanley Cup finals. The Red Wings faced strong opposition, but showed their true grit and skill every step of the way, getting stronger as each playoff series progressed. All the players on the Red Wings contributed to the team's success. Deservedly, each player will have his name engraved on the Stanley Cup, which is considered to be the most conveted sports trophy in North America. I would like to thank my Michigan colleagues for cosponsoring this resolution. We congratulate the Detroit Red Wings on an awesome year. Way to go Red Wings! Hockeytown is proud.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I had every intention to vote for this bill when I entered this Chamber. But now the bill has been substantially transformed from a demonstration program to allow pilots to carry guns aboard aircraft into a permanent program of arming every commercial pilot. The transformation of this bill is so substantial that I intend to vote against H.R. 4635. As a Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I am very concerned about improving airline security, and I basically support allowing pilots to carry guns as a last line of defense against potential hijackers. Our subcommittee has held a number of hearings to determine the status of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) progress in meeting the deadlines established under the Aviation Security Act. We have all followed the slow progress this new agency is making in meeting the timelines to improve the security of the nation's 429 airports and commercial airline carriers. It is unlikely that we will be able to equip all airports with the explosive detection equipment and magnetometers that are required to screen baggage and passengers. The TSA has not been able to satisfactorily determine security standards for cargo flights and the security standards of international flights has not been addressed at all. The TSA has fallen behind its own internal deadlines and its coordination with airports and airlines has been lacking. This is the wrong time to impose a new mandate on an agency that is struggling to meet it original mission. I cannot in good conscience vote for legislation that imposes a new requirement on an agency that has yet to demonstrate its success in meeting the current legislative requirements. The airline industry must demonstrate to the traveling public that the security measures required of it are in place to protect passenger safety, not put it at risk. It is important that pilots demonstrate to passengers that they can safely pilot a commercial plane and still defend against hijackers. We must know more about how misfires from discharged weapons can affect the airworthiness of our crafts. The amendment that transformed this bill assumes that the need for an additional level of security in the pilot's cabin outweighs the potential safety problems caused by the accidental misuse of firearms on board an aircraft. I respectfully disagree with that thinking, and for that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the bill.