Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' on final passage of the Child Custody Protection Act (rollcall vote 97) when I meant to vote ``no.'' Please let the Record reflect my true intention and note this statement in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, so the pattern continues. In October 2001, we provided $15 million to the airline industry following the September 11th attack but the Republican leadership did nothing to assist the rank-and-file workers who were laid off. In November 2001, the Republican leadership bailed out the insurance industry at $30 plus million, but did nothing for the rank-and-file workers. In February 2002, the Republican leadership secured big business with several tax breaks, but again, no real assistance for the rank-and-file worker. Mr. Speaker, this pattern begs the question, ``who are we here to represent?'' According to the actions of the leadership, it would seem that we are to represent big business only. What about the rank-and- file workers who make up more than half of our country? Do they not deserve protection and security by the United States of America? Today, we are attempting to pass a bill that purports to protect workers from future Enron debacles. Thousands of workers at Enron were left distraught and with little to no retirement savings. Executives, who knew of the situation, secured their assets. These employees lost well over $1 billion of their retirement savings because corporate management kept their employees in the dark about the actual net worth of Enron and the safety of the 401(k) plans. The leadership claims to fix that situation with H.R. 3762. This bill proposes a 30-day notice prior to ``blackout'' periods for rank-and- file employees. This, supposedly, will allow employees to alter their 401(k) plans before the blackout. Executives, however, will have the option to adjust their 401(k) plans at anytime, even during the blackout. The bill also permits executives to move thousands of dollars from their stock plans without rank-and-file employees being notified of the drastic change. Additionally, executives would be the only individuals on the Pension Board deliberating the pension plans for the entire company. Amendments to include workers on the Board have been struck down. This bill supports what occurred at Enron. We need a bill that works for the rank-and-file, not just for the corporate executive. We need extensive disclosure of pension information for the rank-and-file. We need independent, unbiased and accurate financial advice. We need rank- and-file representation on the Pension Boards so their voices will be heard. We need a level playing field during blackouts. If rank-and-file employees cannot touch their 401(k) plans, executives should be prohibited too. All of these suggestions are addressed in the Democratic substitute but not in the bill. Mr. Speaker, it is due time that the leadership acknowledge the pension rights of workers and seek to secure them. For that reason, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 3762. This is another attempt to protect the wealthy, with little concern for the worker. We can do much better, Mr. Speaker, and I await that day.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the President's budget and the Republicans' budget. Some months ago, this House stood almost unanimously and said we would put the Social Security monies in a lockbox. The lockbox is smashed. We are spending Social Security, $1.6 trillion of it, in this budget resolution that is before us today. In addition, Medicare is being cut billions of dollars. Our seniors, who have built this country, have no medical insurance. Our health care industry is about to crash. This budget resolution is a sham. Come on, Republicans, we can do a lot better. Let us take care of America's people and America's seniors.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution we are considering today is more of a campaign pamphlet than it is a deliberative piece of legislation. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I'm pleased to say that the work of the Budget Committee is no longer grounded in fiscal reality but more apt to produce what we call soundbite legislation. Once again, we are seeing that budget resolutions can engage in flights of fancy, while the Appropriations Committee will be forced to do the hard work of deciding how the real money will be spent in this place. This resolution really makes the budget process a sham. This is a budget that's based less on sound economic assumptions and more on the principles of Enronomics. The supporters of this budget are working on a selling job to make you believe that this plan will provide a balanced budget by fiscal year 2010. But what we are told is far different from the fiscal reality. This is feel good legislation that will exact fiscal harm and pain in the out years. To hide the real truth, the Republican budget purposely uses 5 year numbers instead of 10. The Republican budget is simply irresponsible. In its budget, the GOP proposes new tax cuts and funds these cuts by spending hundreds of billions from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other programs. Moreover, the Republican leadership plans to bring to the floor next month even larger tax cuts and has expressed support for making permanent the provisions in last year's tax cut. CBO estimates that by making these tax cuts permanent, revenues would be reduced by $569 billion over 10 years. Democrats want a budget that reflects our Nation's priorities. Unfortunately, key Democratic amendments on key issues that the majority of Americans care deeply about were blocked by Republicans from reaching the House floor. An amendment I offered relating to prescription drugs, which would have ensured that seniors receive a prescription drug benefit that is comprehensive and meaningful, was blocked from being considered on the floor. Unfortunately, the $350 billion that the Republicans have proposed in their budget for Medicare reform and prescription drugs would barely make a dent in helping seniors and the disabled in getting the prescription drug coverage they need--and deserve. We have all made this a pledge with our words--the test is to show it with the numbers laid out in the budget resolution. The Republican resolution fails miserably at this test. Their budget also fails to adequately fund other key priorities so important to Americans and our future, such as education, child care, and environmental protections. The Republicans budget aims to hide the truth and the real costs over the years. I oppose this budget resolution and urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Conyers amendment (rollcall No. 63) to H.R. 2146, the ``Two Strikes and You're Out'' Child Protection Act and ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 2146, the ``Two Strikes and You're Out'' Child Protection Act (rollcall No. 64).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost let it be known that I strongly support the protection of children from child molesters and the punishment of those who molest children to the full extent of the law. I am, however, concerned that the use of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines is not the right direction to take. This measure is another expansion of the use of mandatory minimum sentencing without the benefit of studying their true impact. Mandatory minimum sentences, particularly as they pertain to drug sentencing, have resulted in a skyrocketing prison population with no end in sight. Our prisons today are filled with nonviolent drug offenders serving harsh sentences for acts that treatment might better address. I believe that our experience in this area has shown that crimes are best assessed on a case-by-case basis, by a judge and jury of one's peers. I do not believe we should enact more legislation that takes the administration of justice away from our Nation's judges.

Mr. KILPATRICK

Mr. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to business in the District, I was unavoidably detained on Wednesday, March 13. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows on the amendments to H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act: ``aye'' on the Waters Amendment (Roll-call No. 56); ``aye'' on the Conyers Amendment (Roll-call No. 58); ``aye'' on the Jackson-Lee Amendment (Roll-call No. 59) and ``aye'' on the Frank Amendment (Roll-call No. 60). Finally, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to recommit offered by Mr. Sandlin (Roll-call No. 61) and ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 2341 (Roll-call No. 61).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support and highlight the importance of International Women's Day on March 8. International Women's Day honors the history and important work of women around the world in their fight toward equality, justice, and peace. While this day symbolizes the advancement and great strides that have been made, this day also symbolizes the work that still needs to be done to break down the barriers and injustices women continue to face day after day. In our nation and around the world, women continue to be victims of violence. Domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape are just a few forms of the injustices perpetrated against women. The statistics are startling. In our nation, at least I out of 6 women and girls has been beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. Worldwide, the percentage increases dramatically to I out of every 3 women. These numbers speak to the continued and gross victimization that women face. Here at home and around the world, we need to continue our efforts to ensure that women are provided with the safeguards, services, and tools they need, namely an education, to break the cycle of violence. Education empowers individuals and would give women the opportunity to be independent and self-reliant. No woman anywhere should have to continue to be a victim of violence and discrimination. International Women's Day represents this important goal.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to business in the District, I respectfully request a leave of absence from legislative business scheduled for today, Wednesday, March 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 48 on approving the Journal; ``no'' on rollcall No. 49, the motion to proceed to the previous question during the consideration of H. Con. Res. 275; and ``aye'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S.J. Res. 32.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to business in the District, I was unavoidably detained on, Tuesday, March 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 47--H. Con. Res. 305, permitting use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present a gold medal on behalf of Congress to former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband legislation. I am simply not confident that this bill provides adequate protection to consumers. I have watched, over the years, while as a nation, we have boldly made our way down the road of deregulation. We deregulated the Savings and Loan Industry and watched them implode under the weight of their own largess. We saw the same with both the Airlines Industry and the former AT&T and Bell behemoths. In all of those cases the consumer paid the price through increased fees, tax subsidies and decreased services. Now, given the choice to either regulate cable and satellite or deregulate the Baby Bells, who we know to have a history of bad behavior, we are urged to deregulate the bad actors. In my eyes, the underlying legislation before the House represents a choice to deregulate the bad actors. Without amendment, the underlying bill would limit State and Federal regulation of the pipeline we know as the Internet to an antitrust suit against the Bell Companies. This Mr. and Mrs. America is no choice. This bill gives consumers, who are my constituents and the people that I care about most, no protection if prices are unjustly increased and no protection for failing service quality. Internet Service Providers oppose the measure because it would subject them to the unrestrained will of the Baby Bells. Small Innovative Telecommunications Companies oppose the measure because it will force them out of the market. Thirty-one Public Utility Commissions, including Michigan's oppose this bill. The National Governors Association opposes this bill. The National League of Cities opposes Tauzin-Dingell. The Council of State Governments opposes Tauzin-Dingell. Most Consumers Groups oppose this bill because it will lead to price increases and inept service. Mr. Chairman, as you can see there is strong opposition to this measure. Again, I am not confident that any amendment can fix this bill and protect the consumers of Michigan's 15th district. So I will oppose this measure on final passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republicans are attempting to shove forward several tax provisions for the wealthy and big businesses without adequate consideration for the unemployed and low-income. This is the third time in five months that an economic stimulus package has been to the House floor. Not once out of the three times, has there been sufficient assistance in the form of health insurance converge and unemployment benefits for the unemployed and low-income families. Not once have Republican considered the long-term effect of the unnecessary tax cuts. Not once have they considered anything else but their special interests, the wealthy. We need a bill that will give better backing for COBRA insurance. The tax credit that this bill provides will do nothing for the families and individuals who cannot afford to pay upfront for the insurance packages. While Democrats have been fighting to help the jobless and low-wage workers, the number of those in need has grown and each individual has been without federal income support since March, when this recession officially started. While we stand in the midst of a recession, we have Members of Congress who contritely confess their sincere desire to help the American people, but simultaneously provide help for only approximately 25 percent of the American people, who happen to be very wealthy. The rest of the nation will suffer because they are not wealthy enough or because they are not highly compensated executives in the corporate world. This bill follows the pattern this Congress established when it passed the airline bailout bill last October. We provided $15 billion in financial assistance to financially strapped airlines following the September 11th attack, but the leadership of this Chamber did nothing for rank-and-file workers who were laid off by the airlines. Last November, this Chamber bailed out the insurance industry, which covered the airline industry we bailed out the month before, but the leadership did nothing for rank-and-file workers who were laid off by the airlines or as a result of the economic recession. This bill today, like the others before, is another tax break bill for people who do very well in good times and bad, but it does very little for the people who need the most help--the jobless and low wage workers. Once again, this bill, like the others before, puts those most in need as a last priority. That's unacceptable. For that reason, I will vote ``no''. Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. It's unfortunate that the other side of the aisle does not negotiate in good faith. No one saw this bill before it came to the House floor. It did not go through the committee process. This is a product of an autocratic procedure. It is put out for us to take or leave. That's it. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, leadership, that is what this country wants. Leadership. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs from KMart to Ford Motor Company, and everything in between across the country. Here we sit as 435 and 535 of the most powerful people in the world and cannot come together on a package that would stimulate the economy, save families, give hope to our children, and protect the seniors who built this country. Leadership, Mr. Speaker, that is what this country needs. If we can give $100 billion to the terrorism debacle that we find ourselves in, over $50 billion for the airline industry, over $35 billion to the insurance industry, can we not find the dollars that families in America needs to take care of their children, the people who played by the rules, raised their children, did everything we said they should do? I am appalled by this Congress, as we sit here today, the richest country in the world, which was in recession before September 11, and then the tragedy of September 11, and cannot come together as leaders. Come on, men, 56 women, let us do what is right. Let us come together. The Senate passed the unemployment benefit insurance extension. Rise up and build, America is at stake.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for some of the legislative business scheduled for today, Wednesday, January 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 2, H.R. 700, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act and rollcall No. 3, H.R. 2234, the Tumacacori National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, while I support the ratification and implementation of the International Conventions for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in H.R. 3275, I cannot support the overall bill. I am concerned that bill includes controversial language that will jeopardize future enforcement of these Conventions. I believe that the provision in title I that authorizes the imposition of the death penalty for the offenses set forth in section 102.2 is superfluous and unnecessary. Our experience with other nations, as it pertains to the U.S. death penalty, should guide our actions on the floor today. Courts in Canada and France have refused to extradite criminals to the United States, citing our continued insistence on the imposition of the death penalty. A South African Constitutional Court ruled that a suspect on trial in Manhattan in connection with the bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania should not have been turned over to United States authorities without assurances that he would not face the death penalty. At a time when we are seeking the cooperation of nations to bring international criminals to justice, it makes no sense to authorize this death penalty provision, which may, in fact, impede the extradition of criminals to U.S. jurisdiction. The administration acknowledges that capital punishment is not required to implement the Conventions. Yet, even while admitting that the provision is unnecessary to implement the Convention, the administration justifies the inclusion of this new death penalty provision by claiming that it simply tracks current law. This justification is without merit. Under U.S. law, the death penalty is justified for its deterrent effect. Surely in this case there is no punitive or deterrent basis for the death penalty. In this instance, those that the Conventions target are willing to commit suicide for their criminal causes. In this instance, it cannot be argued in good faith that fear of the death penalty will prevent terrorists from carrying out acts of terrorism.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the foreign operations bill and the process by which it has gone through this United States Congress. I have been a member of this committee now for some 3 years and under the leadership of the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and now the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). I want to add my voice to those of support and to thank the chairman for his kindness, his inclusion, and the opportunity to work with him. I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for her leadership. In spite of the tragedy of our Nation and being from New York and all of the consequences that it must have had for the gentlewoman's family and her constituents, I appreciate her leadership and I appreciate her being here and allowing us to participate and represent as we have been sent here to do. This is a good foreign operations bill, as has been said, and really has increased many of the lines where we need assistance to assist the countries around the world. Our Export-Import Bank has really been restored to the place that it needs to be to assist our businesses so that they can help not only increase their bottom lines, but to send American goods around the world and receive those goods that will help our communities. The child survival and health account, most important during this time of pandemic proportions in our HIV/AIDS pandemic that strikes not only Africa, but Russia, India, Asia and our United States as well. The UNICEF account. I thank my colleagues very much for the additional appropriation there for children around the world who basically need it. And then in our basic education accounts for children around the world to begin to receive the kind of education that they will need to take care of themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. The one objection I do have, and nothing is perfect in this Congress, is the language that is retained that banned those organizations from receiving funds who counsel their clients on abortions in their family planning programs. Family planning is not giving abortions. Family planning is just that; and many people around the world, particularly poor women, need the counseling so that they can plan their children and be able to take care of their people and their families. Mr. Speaker, I do support the foreign operations bill. I hope that we will go further next year and address the pandemic a little better and give the relief to women who need it around this country as they plan their families.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the bill we consider today is a misnomer. It is not as it purports itself to be . . . an ``economic stumulus'' bill. Rather, it is a corporate windfall tax break bill. The bill will do little to turnaround the economy and to assist those working Americans who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. The bill is almost a clone of the tax cut bill we passed in October. I voted against the first bill, and I intend to vote against this one. Sixty-three percent of the $250 billion in tax breaks contained in this bill go to corporations. Some of the tax loopholes proposed in this bill will allow corporations to shelter interest income from offshore accounts at a cost of $3 billion over three years. The bill cuts the corporate alternative minimum tax by about two-thirds and pays out rebates over a stretched out period of time. The alternative minimum tax was enacted to ensure that America's largest corporations would pay a minimum amount of tax, just as average taxpayers do. The majority on the Ways and Means Committee obviously think otherwise, and it is proposing to virtually eliminate all future minimum corporate tax liability. That means we will return to the days when many corporate entities, who earn millions and billions in profits, will incur a tax liability lower than the average individual wage earner. The bill will also accelerate the reduction of the 27 percent income tax rate to 25 percent. The main features of this tax bill are easy to figure. For the most part, this is an instant replay of the corporate tax cut bill this House passed in October by the resounding margin of two votes. The majority party in this House is bent on shifting the tax burden away from corporations and individuals of privileged means- income sources that can afford to pay more in taxes--to the average, lunch bucket taxpayer. That doesn't do much for the cause of tax equity nor for the cause of stimulating the economy. Now this bill is not completely bad. It has some good features that I support. For example, the bill extends unemployment compensation benefits by 13 weeks. As Martha Stewart says: ``That's a good thing.'' I also understand that the bill contains tax relief provisions for those victims who perished in the September 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and to businesses in New York City adversely affected by the terrorist attacks. That, too, is a provision I support. But my support for the bill ends there. I have consistently voted against industry-specific bailout packages such as the Airline Assistance and the terrorism insurance bills. I did so because this House and the majority leadership of this House were willing to provide assistance to corporate America who suffered from the September 11 tragedy while it ignored victims of those attacks who became jobless in the wake of the economic downturn that ensued. The Leadership gave us assurances that a worker relief package would be crafted during the week of September 24. That week came and went with no worker relief package. More weeks passed without any worker relief package. It has been almost three months since we received those assurances that the Leadership brings up an economic stimulus package which contains some benefits for the jobless, but falls well short of being regarded as a ``worker relief'' package. The package of benefits contained in this measure is too little and very late. We are being forced to vote on a bill that no one has read or studied. What we know of the bill's contents comes from the press releases and comments from Chairman Thomas's office. The Members of the other side of the aisle refer to this measure as a compromise. If this bill represents a compromise, it is a compromise only among those who serve in the majority. The Members who crafted this bill are not sincere in their intention to assist the victims of the current economic downturn. They argue that the tax cuts proposed in this bill will help keep those currently employed on the job. To their credit, there is some merit to that argument. But when it comes to providing the jobless income assistance and affordable health insurance benefits to help them through these tough economic times, they fall short of the mark. The priorities of the majority are clearly defined. Bail out the airline industry. Bail out the commercial insurance industry. But forget and neglect those working families who have been displaced by the imperfections of a business cycle that went into a tailspin following the September 11th attack on America.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 1, ``The Leave No Child Behind Act.'' I thank the leadership from both sides of the aisle, Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller, for their diligence and commitment in constructing a bipartisan bill that represents a promising framework for our public educational system. The promise of a brighter future for all our nation's children through excellence in education should be the most important goal for Congress. This Conference Report contains promising steps to improving education for our nation's students by providing significant increases in educational funding for key programs. The increase in Title I funding will help to close the achievement gap that currently exists between low-income, disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers. It provides funding for after-school programs that ensure our children have access to quality, enriching programs during non-school hours. It provides funding to improve teacher quality in our nation's classrooms and gives States and local districts flexibility over the use of federal funds in order to improve the level of achievement for all students. The Conference Report also includes funding for school construction, strong civil rights protections and funding for hate- crime prevention, which Democrats fought hard to include. This bill also affords parents the tools they need to ensure that their children are receiving a quality education. However, as I do rise in support of this bill, it is not without reservation. In a year where the President and Congress have pledged to ``leave no child behind,'' we, unfortunately, do not fulfill this commitment to those children with special education needs. Congress needs to make funding for special education mandatory, so that schools, teachers, and students with special education needs will have the tools they need to perform successfully. Congress also needs to continue its commitment to excellence in education and realize the need to provide more funding in the years ahead to ensure that our nation's public schools are able to meet the requirements laid out in this bill and face the challenges ahead of them. I am hopeful that this bill puts us on the right track to meeting the educational needs of all of America's students. I urge Congress to commit to providing additional resources for educational programs and providing full funding for special education. This will ensure that we meet the goal of educational excellence for all our nation's youth.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, during the 2000 Presidential election, nearly 100 million Americans went to the polls to vote. Of those who went, nearly 6 million votes were discarded and thrown out due to faulty machines. In addition to these 6 million wasted votes, there were countless Americans who were not allowed to vote due to erroneous records and over zealous vote purging efforts. Many of these people, unfortunately, were from poor and minority communities. The election reform legislation we are considering today does not establish adequate voting rights protections to prevent many of the problems that we experienced in the 2000 presidential elections. According to Civil Rights Organizations like the ACLU, there are three goals that legislation must accomplish to achieve maximum election results. Voters should be able to count on uniformity of voting equipment and laws, adequate accessibility to the polls and accuracy in the accounting of votes. A critical issue in any election reform measure is the enforcement of some minimum uniform standards for elections. After all, the Supreme Court rejected the Florida Presidential election recount because of the lack of uniformity in the standards used to recount the votes. I personally find it ironic that the Court chose to limit uniform standards to uniform state laws as opposed to uniform Federal laws, which would require all states to meet minimum uniform election standards. The Ney-Hoyer bill does not adequately address the issue of uniform standards and in many ways continues wide and varied election practices from state to state. The Ney-Hoyer bill includes an opt-out provision that would allow any state to easily avoid complying with suggested federal standards. The bill makes token suggestions to states to take greater efforts to address the serious problems facing non-English speaking minorities and the disabled in casting their ballots. Disabled and non-English speaking voters face hurdles to proper access due to physical and language barriers at the polling place. They, perhaps most of all, need a bill that provides voter education so that citizens know how to vote and are aware of the constitutional right to vote. The bill simply encourages states to take steps to provide for provisional voting as opposed to mandating compliance with federal standards. This again allows states to choose whether or not to take steps that would make our voting system more uniform across the country. For example, provisional voting, which would allow voters to challenge erroneous records, is a highly recommended reform to our current voting system. Under this measure states are given the option to implement this recommendation. The most disturbing provisions in the bill are provisions, I believe, that would push voters from the rolls. Under the legislation, voters would be disqualified from casting their ballots if they fail to vote in two elections and fail to respond to a mailed notice. This contradicts current law and subjects voters to continued vigilance to ensure that their names are not inadvertently removed from the voting rolls. I am also disappointed that the rule only allows for an hour of debate on a bill that claims to be election reform. The rule only allows for one hour of general debate with no opportunity to amend the bill. How can we consider a bill affecting the most fundamental attribute of democracy--voting--and not have the opportunity to fully debate and amend the provisions of the bill? Furthermore the bill was not fully vetted by the appropriate committees in the House. Voting legislation is generally within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which deals with issues of a constitutional or judicial nature. The Judiciary Committee never considered this bill. I did not cosign this election reform bill. I cosponsored a bill offered by Mr. Conyers, H.R. 1170, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act. I would add that Mr. Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. That bill takes substantive steps to apply uniform voting standards across the country and provides enforcement mechanisms that ensure compliance with these standards. It was my hope that the Rules Committee would at least allow this bill to be considered as a substitute amendment to the bill. Once again, the leadership in the House has chosen politics over the people. Once again, the rights of the people, through their elected representatives, to consider all the relevant alternatives is being abridged. Once again, we are being forced to consider a limited measure that does not adequately address the concerns of the majority of the American people. We are on the heels of the 2002 elections and we are just now considering an election reform measure. If the upcoming elections are anything like the 2000 presidential election, it is my fear that we are in for more of the same. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and final passage of this token election reform legislation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted ``present'' on this Concurrent Resolution because it is my belief that the United States through the House of Representatives should remain a fair and honest broker in the Middle East. At a time when hostilities in the Middle East are escalating and all parties are looking to American officials to negotiate a fair and equitable solution, I believe that this Resolution is ill timed and diminishes the credibility of the negotiation process. It is imperative that all steps we take in this House secure our position as an impartial broker in the Middle East and this measure does not do this. Make no mistake. I stand against terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians such as those that occurred in Israel this past weekend. I condemn them wholeheartedly. Both sides in the conflict, however, have the blood of innocents on their hands. Both sides in this conflict must make extraordinary and concerted efforts to come to the negotiating table and resolve the problems of the region. I support the findings of the Mitchell-Tenet Commission, which recommended that Congress not approve such resolutions. I regret that Congress is ignoring that recommendation. By doing so, the action of this chamber only serves to prolong the hostilities in that region and discourages both sides from engaging in the negotiation process. I strongly urge the parties to cease hostilities and do all they can to move forward with the Mitchell-Tenet recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I, too, was a member of the subcommittee and want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his excellent leadership, coming in as a new subcommittee chair for this bill, being fair, thorough. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, who has always been effective in his quiet intelligence for allowing all of us to participate and to represent the constituents who send us here. I represent Michigan, the border city of Detroit, one of the busiest border crossings in our country in northern America, and it is very important that we do what we need to do to secure those borders, and I want to thank both the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for the work that they have put in this bill to begin that process. Since September 11 I have had an opportunity to meet on two occasions with our Coast Guard, our INS, our Customs and our Border Patrol to talk about the needs that they must have over the next several months and years to actually secure those borders, and I know that I have the support of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as well as our chairman of our subcommittee and our ranking member to see that that is done. Quite a bit of commerce comes across that Canadian border, as well as other things, both negative and positive. This bill begins to address much of it, and I want to thank the leadership of this committee for allowing that. We still have work to do on those borders. The Coast Guard, INS, Customs and Border Patrol are still short of people. The supplemental that is going through will help some of that, too. The world has changed since September 11, and this transportation bill begins to address that. I thank the committee very much for all that it has done for the State of Michigan and for this country to address those needs in this bill, and, as we move forward in our next appropriation and beyond, consider those agencies who risks their lives every day to secure our borders and bring more attention to our northern borders here in our country. I would urge all my colleagues to support this bill. It is wonderful, it is fair, it is good transportation policy. I rise in support of the conference report, and I appreciate the efforts of our Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo for putting together a bill that we can pretty much all agree on. This bill makes some significant funding advances for providing additional inspectors at airports and for improving airport security. I think this must be viewed as a first step toward ensuring the safety and security of our commercial transportation infrastructure, and I am very pleased with our efforts in this area. Another area of concern to all of us is funding for a key agency in the protection of our homeland security, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard personnel resources assigned to protecting our nation's ports were stretched before September 11th and are stretched even thinner now. This bill will give the resources necessary to bring some relief to the demands being made of our Coast Guard personnel. I am also pleased that we have reached a compromise on the NAFTA trucking issue. The compromise reached will go along way to ensuring highway safety and still comply with the NAFTA accord this Congress supported almost a decade ago. Let me say to my colleagues that this year's bill focused much attention on the southern border. Next year, I look forward to working with my colleagues in strengthening the security of our transportation infrastructure along the northern border. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is one that we can be proud of and I thank the Speaker for granting me this time.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge and commemorate World AIDS Day, which is Saturday, December 1. Today, worldwide, AIDS is the fourth largest killer of people. Forty million people, as has been said, are living with AIDS today. As has been said, 900,000 here in America and 13,000 in my own State of Michigan. Half of the infected cases are young adults between 13 and 25. The cost of treating AIDS is astronomical. Our health system is not able today to carry that cost, and we must invest in our health system from top to bottom so we can treat those who are infected. It is important because countries around the world, including Africa, Eastern Europe, the U.K., Australia and Japan, are seeing increasing cases of HIV and AIDS. We must educate young people as well as others how to prevent the scourge of AIDS and carry out that responsibility. We must also invest resources so our health care system can treat.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, all of you know that I represent Detroit, Michigan. The Detroit Port of Entry at the Ambassador Bridge, Windsor Tunnel and Blue Water Bridge handles 40 percent of the trade between U.S. and Canada. More than $1 billion in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border every day. The auto industry makes up one third of that trade. The auto industry operates under ``Just in Time'' inventory systems, and the quick, efficient processing and clearance of auto parts is essential to the industry's survival. Detroit border crossings accommodate over 61 percent of all cross- border truck traffic along the U.S.-Canada border. It is the largest border truck crossing area in the nation. Long limes and 15-hour traffic backups are not unusual. In the days following the September 11th assault, the border--for all practical purposes--was shut down. The U.S.-Canada border embodies 40 percent of the total U.S. ports of entry, has only 14 percent of U.S. Customs primary inspectors who perform 33 percent of the U.S. Customs national workload. The number of Customs inspectors along the U.S.-Canada border is less than 900. That number has been relatively constant since the Reagan Administration, although the cross border commercial transactions have increased 600 percent. We need to address the imbalance. Since September 11, our border enforcement personnel have been on Level One security alert. Customs and INS inspection personnel along the northern border have historically suffered from inadequate funding. These problems have dramatically intensified in the aftermath of the attack. The Treasury, Postal Service and the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill provides increases for Customs and INS inspection personnel. Customs received a $28 million increase to provide for an additional 285 inspectors along the northern border. INS was increased $25 million to provide 348 additional positions to address understaffing problems at northern border ports of entry. The Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel currently operate with only 23 INS inspectors. According to a study provided to the Senate, these ports of entry need 151 inspectors. By the way, that study was released in December 2000. It is outdated given the tragic events that occurred in September. These increases in Customs and INS inspectors were based on assessments conducted well before the terrorist attack. These increases in Customs and INS personnel are based on a peace time assessment, not one based on the heightened state of security under which our government is operating. We have been trying to get official estimates of the Customs and INS inspection personnel needs but without success. But we do know one thing: Detroit ports of entry will be unable to receive the resources necessary to process goods, people and traffic in an efficient manner that ensures the continued vitality of U.S.-Canada commercial relations in a state of higher security. The State of Michigan is supporting the work of Customs inspectors and INS inspectors assigned to the ports of entry. The State of Michigan has assigned anywhere from 30 to 45 National Guard personnel a day to assist Customs in conducting commercial inspections at the Detroit ports of entry. Twenty-four National Guard personnel assist INS agents in processing travelers coming across these border points. I should point out that we have National Guard personnel assisting Customs and INS staff at Port Huron and the Soo Locks. Certainly the need for more Customs and INS personnel is real, immediate and over and above the number appropriated for in the regular fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. We have a chance to correct this shortfall, but we are being denied that opportunity. This denies the opportunity for Mr. Obey to offer an amendment that addresses these security needs of a nation that is vulnerable to domestic and foreign-source terrorist threats. The Rules Committee will allow one individual to raise a point of order against amendments we plan to offer to plus-up spending for defense and homeland security needs. For instance, the Obey amendment proposes to add $140 million for 790 additional Customs inspectors along the northern border. This is a minimum proposal that certainly recognizes the long-ignored border resources needs of Detroit. To those among us who have signed or written letters of support for more help along our borders, you should support efforts to have the Obey proposal receive the full and fair consideration of the House. If you have a water port, the security of that port is important to sustaining the economic viability of your community. If that is the case, you should support a rule that protects these amendments from parliamentary tactics. The Obey proposal would increase the Coast Guard by 640 positions for port security operations, provide money to conduct port security assessments and enhancements and 840 additional Customs agents for cargo inspection. Recently, I received a petition from a number of INS inspectors working at one of the Detroit land border ports. The petition they sent to my attention contained a number of grievances they wished to call to my attention. Their complaints centered on the fact that their resources were already stretched thin before September 11, but they have worsened since then. Here are some of the problems they called to my attention: In the last three years INS manpower has been halved while the amount of vehicles that require processing has tripled; inspectors are expected to work a six-day week, plus additional overtime; the average inspector works 56 to 64 hours per week. They go on with other complaints concerning other working conditions, but these employees need some relief from the pace of work they are experiencing. When I go home to my constituents, I would like to be able to tell them that Congress did something to improve the security at the ports of entry that serve the Greater Detroit Area. The only way that can happen is if we vote down this rule, so we can have an opportunity to vote for the resources necessary to improve the homeland security of this country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in my district, I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Thursday, November 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 433, on approving the Journal; rollcall No. 434, H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD appropriations conference report; and rollcall No. 435, on the motion to instruct House conferees on the bill H.R. 3061, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in my District, I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Wednesday, November 7th. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on (1) Rollcall No. 429, H.R. 2998, the Radio Free Afghanistan Act; (2) Rollcall No. 430, H.R. 852, designating the Nathaniel R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and Courthouse; (3) Rollcall No. 431, H.R. 3167, the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act; and (4) Rollcall No. 432, H. Con. Res. 262.