Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the passage of H.R. 4986, the Senate Amendments to the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act. While it is important that our nation's businesses have the benefit of a level playing field when competing against foreign businesses, we should not do so on the back of the American Public or to the detriment of the health and welfare of those outside of our borders. Let it not be said that we are a nation willing to sacrifice all principles for the welfare of our nation's businesses. The measure before us, effective for transactions entered after September 30, 2000, will allow both individuals and companies an exemption from federal taxes of all income earned abroad (whether or not the product is manufactured in the United States or abroad). The measure does require that 50% of the components of the final product be manufactured in the United States. The measure also eliminates current law allowing for the creation of Foreign Sales Corporations. Although I supported the measure when it was originally considered in the House facts have come to light that have given me pause to support the measure. I believe that there are questions concerning the process used to move this measure. The FSC is a complicated matter that warrants the full and deliberate consideration of the entire House. Considering this measure under suspension of the rules clearly inhibits this body's ability to make the most informed decision about this important matter which will affect the people we represent. Policy questions concerning this matter also abound. For example, during consideration of the bill an amendment was pursued that would have exempted tobacco companies from the tax exemption provided under the measure. It is argued that this measure will give tobacco companies an estimated $100 million in taxpayer subsidies to export cigarettes. It is further argued that this subsidy provides incentives to tobacco companies to maximize and promote sales in other countries. It gives me pause to think that the policy Congress endorses in this measure will give the impression that while we care about the health risks imposed by tobacco use on American lives, we are not concerned about the health risks imposed by tobacco use on foreign lives. Questions have also been raised on the effect this measure will have on the U.S. economy. Proponents of the measure argue that the bill will spur domestic investment and employment through an increase in exports, while opponents point to studies that indicate that ``export subsidies, such as FSC's, reduce global economic welfare and typically even reduce the welfare of the country granting the subsidy . . . [C]ompanies in import-competing industries reduce domestic investment and employment.'' I am hesitant to support a measure that may in fact be detrimental to the well being of our nation's economy. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I rise in opposition to H.R. 4986, and I recommend a nay vote on its passage. Mr. Crane. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable to vote on the floor today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 665 (rollcall No. 589), ``aye'' on the motion to instruct offered by Mr. Holt (rollcall No. 590), and ``aye'' on the motion to instruct offered by Mr. Wu (rollcall No. 591).

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his leadership over these last several years that I have had a chance to work with the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate and also including some of the projects. I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our ranking member, for her undying efforts to work to get the job done. I want to thank the two of them. They certainly have brought a great deal to the floor. We would all hope for more money, at least on our side; but it certainly is a good bill. And I would urge my colleagues to support it. I want to say special thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for being persistent, to see that Mozambique, one of the most stable countries on the African continent, is able to continue in their prosperity. I know without their leadership, we would not have seen the early release of the dollars and then the final effort here in this bill. I want to thank both the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). We live in a global economy. When America deals well as the leading country in the world, it is our obligation to be a partner in the rest of the world, and this bill begins that effort. And I certainly want to add my voice to those who say that when we live in a global economy, and as the richest country in the world that God has blessed us to be born and raised in, that responsibility is beginning to be met with this foreign operations bill in front of us. With the international family planning language set, with the $420 million appropriation there to help family planning for women all over the world, it is a major effort. I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for working closely and hard on that. Debt relief for some of the poorest countries in the world, understanding that this country only has a small fraction of that debt relief, that much of it is from other countries, by us being the leaders in the world, our effort in this bill will certainly help those poor countries and send a signal to those other countries where much of that debt is held; Africa, the continent, the largest in the world, from funding the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, helping in reaching out. This is a bill that we can support. Thanks again to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our ranking member, for their support of our projects.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 426, Concerning the Violence in the Middle East. It is truly disheartening to witness the renewed violence that has plagued Israel and the Palestinian territories for nearly thirty days. World leaders, especially President Clinton and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have made numerous attempts to engage the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in negotiations toward an immediate cease-fire agreement that can realistically be implemented. Unfortunately, the latest emergency summit that took place in Egypt on October 16 had little impact on the cessation of violence or the pacification of hostilities. The United States, as one of the foremost advocates of a sustainable Middle East peace agreement, must be very careful not to actively create conditions which defeat the very progress we are trying to achieve. H. Con Res. 426 suggests that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) are the sole parties responsible for the current tragic state of affairs. By supporting this type of inaccurate portrayal, we damage our credibility as a neutral party genuinely seeking to bring about a peaceful solution to an extremely volatile situation. On October 4, 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1322, condemning the surging violence by both Israelis and Palestinians, and the destruction of holy sites in the city of Jerusalem. This resolution passed the Security Council without a single opposing vote--the United States was the only nation to abstain. Due to language in the UN measure regarding the provocation of violence by Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon, and the excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians by Israeli troops, H. Con. Res. 426 expresses its desire for the President exercise UN veto power to ``ensure that the Security Council does not again adopt unbalanced resolutions addressing the uncontrolled violence in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority.'' Yet H. Con. Res. 426 itself is undeniably unbalanced and fails to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of Israel. The conflict in the Holy Land has endured far too long, resulting in the unnecessary loss of human life, creating a rift between ethnic and religious groups, and eroding the historic and aesthetic attributes of the area. A lasting peace agreement will require the commitment of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders and citizens. At this fragile moment in Middle East history, let us not assign blame to one group or another, but rather suggest shared responsibility. The goal of the U.S. is to foster mutual, unwavering effort on the part of both parties to desist from violence and to accept negotiation as the only means of political action. Last month, I further demonstrated my commitment to the negotiation process by supporting H.R. 5272, the Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000. This measure strongly encourages the Palestinian Authority not to undermine the prospects of peace by unilaterally declaring Palestinian Statehood. Before the United States can be accepted as an honest broker in these or any negotiations, it must demonstrate an even-handed approach with both parties. H. Con. Res. 426 undercuts this goal. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the surviving family members of the individuals killed on both sides of the conflict. May the memory of those victims serve as a catalyst to end the cycle of violence.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, Today I am introducing legislation designed to assist school-based health centers face the challenge of meeting their long-term financing needs and developing data gathering systems. This legislation recognizes that school based health care centers (SBHCs) are a fixture in the child health care delivery network and are effective in reaching out to a target under- and uninsured population. There are more than 1,100 SBHCs in the United States, more than 40 of which are located in my home state of Michigan. These clinics bring a wide array of health care services to children in a place where they spend a good amount of time--their school. Schools are a logical place to establish health services for children, and SBHCs should be assigned a greater role and responsibility in the child health care delivery system. As we search for solutions to improve access to health care for children, SBHCs can play an important part in the overall equation. They can provide health care when children want it and where they need it. SBHCs complement the community health system, and they screen to prevent and treat diseases and other health threats. SBHCs, like many community-based health programs, have to piece together funding for services from a multiple number of sources. The largest source of funding comes from states' Maternal and Child Health Care block grants and the Healthy Schools/Healthy Communities program. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the growth of state governments that have established Medicaid managed care plans has complicated reimbursement procedures and health care financing. SBHCs do not have the sophisticated mechanisms to deal effectively and efficiently with the new array of health care plans to ensure that the services they provide will be reimbursed. This bill is an attempt to address this issue. The legislation proposed under this bill would authorize funding of a demonstration program to promote the development of comprehensive, computerized management information systems designed for the following information purposes: Assess the performance of SBHCs; Obtain data on client characteristics; Denote service utilization and outcomes; Support financial functions (appropriate billing procedures); Identify reimbursable categories of service by major funding source; Handle patient tracking functions. This bill should be regarded as a first draft only. I introduced it with the hope that stakeholders like the National Assembly of School Based Health Care, health care providers and plans, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and other entities will work with me to improve the proposal. Our ultimate goal is to provide our children with the health care services they need to remain healthy, lead constructive lives and stay in school. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues to improve on this work.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I come from the State of Michigan, which borders Canada. We know the difference and we know the differentials in prices, and I think it is unfortunate that this conference report puts another sham before the seniors. Seniors need relief, 39 million seniors and over 20 million Medicaid patients who use prescription drugs on a daily basis. Why can we not address their concern? This reimportation clause, many of my constituents who go to Canada, who get the drugs for anywhere from one- third to two-thirds less than they have to pay in America, why is that? Could we not have come in this bill, as good as the bill is and as poor as it is on the prescription question, done better for our seniors, over 50 million who use, seniors, prescriptions on an annual basis every day? I think it is unfortunate. Vote against the rule. Let them go back and if we are going to have a reimportation clause, make it work for the over 50 million people who need a reduction in their prices for their medicines.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for all his hard work, I thank him very much. As a new member on the subcommittee, I do appreciate the gentleman's diligence, his sincerity, as well as his equal handling of us as we worked together in a bipartisan way on this committee, and thanks to Mr. John Blazey and his staff for all the work they have done in working with us. I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his style, grace, and hard work as he works together with all of us to make sure that our transportation needs are met on our side of the aisle; and to Cheryl Smith on the staff, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation bill that we have before us. It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill, as many things are not in the world that we live in today. The bill is good, and I want to make a special point to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for working with Michigan on our transit concerns. We do have a problem in Michigan, and it is a long problem. I hope as this Congress moves forward in the 107th Congress that we will address that problem. Our State Department of Transportation must not work around the appropriations process, must not overlook the Members on both sides of the aisle, and must work with us as members of appropriations, both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and myself, who represent our State and our entire State delegation. I thank the staff for their work with us to make sure that all the Members' concerns are addressed. I pledge that I will continue to do that with the Members, and will hope our State Department of Transportation will do the same, and not try to usurp our appropriations authority. I want to speak briefly on the .08 blood alcohol level. I think it is wonderful and it will save at least 500 lives, as has been mentioned, but we can do more, and not just on this issue, by having further, stronger laws that will save more American lives. The .08 by itself, it will save some, but I think we can do better. We can enforce open container laws. We can have administrators revoking licenses and not waiting for a judicial decision. We can also have mandatory blood testing after accidents to encourage people not to drink. I think all of that must work together if in fact we are going to really address drunk driving in our country. It is a problem. This may be a first step, but we need to do more. The chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) our ranking member, I thank them for their time, for their insistence that we bring a bill that provides safety for our American citizens and also addresses the nation's highway needs. Transit in America is still important. Many people in America do not drive cars, so our highways have to be safe, our transit systems have to be adequate, and we have to continue to work together. I rise in support of the conference report. The process is a little less than what is desired, but I am happy that we have reached this point. I urge my colleagues to vote for the transportation conference report.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, under current law, infants who have been born, and are alive, are indeed persons. Therefore, these infants have the same rights as all humans, including receiving the best of care, comfort, food, and shelter. No one on either side of the aisle would dispute this fact. This is why I find it odd that Representatives Hyde and Canady feel it is necessary to introduce a bill which appears only to restate the current law. I question the motives behind the introduction of this bill. Of course I will vote for any legislation that I believe will help our children, but I am afraid that the motives for introducing this bill are based more on politics than on how to best serve our children. I think it is an underhanded attempt to trick pro-choice Members. This bill was brought before the Judiciary Committee as one that would serve to protect infants and ensure that they receive the best care possible. Based on this, all but one Member of the Committee voted in favor of the bill. The fact that pro-choice Members supported this bill, forced the bill sponsors to declare their intention to offer a Manager's Amendment. This amendment would have attacked the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion and mischaracterized the current state of abortion rights law. The inclusion of this amendment would have forced pro- choice Members to vote against the bill. In turn, this would have given our colleagues on the other side of this issue the opportunity to say that the pro-choice Members did not support a bill that protects infants, when in reality we would have been forced to vote against such a bill due to its attack on the reproductive rights of women. I must give credit to my colleague from North Carolina, Representative Watt, for raising the issue of how fast this bill was rushed through the Judiciary Committee. This bill will amend the U.S. Code by defining the terms ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child,'' and ``individual'' to include ``every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.'' According to the Congressional Research Service, these terms appear in more than 72,000 sections of the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations alone. While I would hope that the sponsors of this bill would not have included this change in the language if it would cause a change in the law or in the way the law would be interpreted by the Supreme Court, since the bill was presented as one that did not change current law, I am not totally convinced. As Representative Watt said in the Committee Report on H.R. 4292, this change in language opens the door for many unintended interpretations of the law. I know that there are many neonatologists who fear that this bill would affect the decisions made by doctors and parents when treating newborns. They are confused, as am I, as to whether this bill would mandate that doctors provide care beyond what they would normally deem to be appropriate for newborns who have no possibility of survival. Doctors are currently obligated to perform procedures that will help a baby to live if there is any chance for survival. Sadly, there are babies who are born with no hope of surviving past the first few moments of live. Doctors should not be forced to perform procedures that will only prove to be futile in prolonging the life of a child. Rather, the rights of the infant should be protected by allowing the infant to spend his few precious moments of life in the arms of his parents. The Committee Report states that ``H.R. 4292 would not mandate medical treatment where none is currently indicated'' and ``would not affect the applicable standard of care.'' Once again, I am concerned that this bill will open up current law to be interpreted in an unintended manner. Therefore, I think we should spend more time addressing how this bill will affect the current law with respect to doctors, women, and children. There is already a common law ``born alive'' rule that mandates the prosecution of anyone who harms a person who has been ``born'' and was ``alive'' at the time of the harmful act. In addition, thirty-seven states have already passed explicit statutory laws relating to the treatment of infants who are ``born alive,'' and perhaps most relevant, there is a federal statue known as the ``Baby Doe Law'' that requires appropriate care be provided to a newborn. Therefore, why is this bill necessary? What is the true intent of this proposed legislation? If in fact the true intent is to restate the law which protects our infants, then I will support it. However, if it is being used as a vehicle to attack the Supreme Court's rulings on the reproductive rights of women, I will have to oppose it.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for his leadership and for working with us as we try to work together to serve the people of America. I thank the gentleman very much and I wish him well in his retirement. And I would like to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his work in yielding time to me this morning. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill, as some 400 others did as it went through the House in June, June 28, I do believe. At that time we thought it was a good bill, needed improvement, but we were willing to work with the chairman and our ranking member to see that we can address America's problems. The Interior bill should have included, and did not, a provision that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be used in the case of an emergency. The Interior bill did not have that in the House. It did not have that in the Senate. This House passed a bill that would give the President authority to release those reserves in an emergency. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that bill has not been acted on in the Senate. The Committee on Appropriations took action to put an amendment on this bill that would give our President the authority, should he need it, to release those reserves. This House adopted that amendment, as well as one that said that the Northeast Corridor could also secure the oil reserves they need. We are now 2 days from a new fiscal year, and much more than that or, just as important, we are on our way in the Midwest and the Northeast part of our country in a severe weather winter season. Mr. Speaker, this bill has stricken the language for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I think that is unfortunate. It has also stricken the language that would help the people in the Northeast meet their heating bills. At a time when our economy is booming, we find many people on fixed incomes, seniors, who will not have the dollars it will take to heat their homes; families who will not have the dollars they will need to send their children to school from a heated healthy home. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate 2 days before the new fiscal year ends that we have not approved permission to our President to release the oil reserves. It is important with 2 days left that we act for the people of the Midwest, for the people of the Northeast Corridor who are about to embark on the winter season, when they do not have the resources. Oil prices are high. It is unfortunate that since we announced and since the President acted on releasing some of the 30 million barrels of oil that oil prices have begun to come down now because this Congress is not acting, because we have stricken the language in this bill. Oil prices are on the way up. Now why is that? The demand is high. Can we not as Members of Congress do what we need to do to make sure, A, the President has the authority, B, that oil prices begin to come down, and that people on fixed incomes, middle-income people with families have the right to heat their homes and drive their cars to get back and forth to their employment with oil reserves that this country can make available to them. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It did not get in the Interior bill. We passed it in this full House. We ought to do it today. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I first want to say that I support the pharmaceutical industry and all that they have done in America over all of these 200-plus years. We have second to none the strongest companies who represent and who bring forth medicines that have taken care of America for a long time. I commend them for that. We support them. We want them to grow. We want them to hire American citizens. And we want them to treat Americans who need and must have their products to live. At the same time, we want the product to be affordable. There is no reason that pharmaceutical companies must make 20, 30 percent profit on their medicines when the average Fortune 500 companies make 5 to 10 percent and consider that to be a formidable profit. The pharmaceutical industry is a strong one, and we want it to remain that. But I come from the State of Michigan. My district borders, the Detroit River borders on the country of Canada. Many of my constituents, seniors, take between four to eight medicines a day. After doing the research, those medicines cost anywhere from $20 to $500 per prescription. Many of them live on fixed incomes. They have to literally choose between eating and getting their medicines. They have to choose between paying their rent or getting their medicines. These are seniors who have built America and, yes, who have built pharmaceutical companies. We must know that much of the research and development that pharmaceutical companies do are at the taxpayers' expense, and that is one of the great things of our country. We want them to do the R&D necessary so that we can live healthier lives as American citizens. At the same time that we use our tax dollars to assist private companies to bring product to the market, we want to make sure that those people, seniors or not, disabled maybe sometimes, who must have medicines to survive are able, are able, are able to get them and are affordable. Mr. Speaker, living on the border of Michigan and Canada, many of my constituents can go across the river in a half hour or less drive and pay one third the cost that prescriptions are being charged here in the country. Why is that? These are, many times, American companies. It has already been stated, that 80 percent of the ingredients in those drugs are imported, that is 20 percent of the drugs are manufactured in other countries. So the whole issue of reimportation, it is already happening. Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would bring the Ag bill to the floor with the provision of reimportation in the bill. It is the proper thing to do. We hope and we have heard some debate that there is not a backroom going on as we speak with six or eight people deciding what that agricultural bill will look like and whether yea or nay that reimportation provision will be in the bill, we have a responsibility, all 435 of us elected by over 600,000 people in our districts to represent, to speak out, prescription drug access, affordable medicines remain one of the top priorities of those that we represent. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the reimportation provision in the agriculture bill. I urge the Republican leadership of this House to bring the issue to the floor. Let us debate it. We want to have our pharmaceutical companies remain strong, but we also want to take care of those many Americans who live from day to day based on the medicines that they must have. Michigan, Canada, our border, Canada, Michigan, our border, do not make my constituents go over the border, U.S. citizens, tax-paying citizens, raising-family citizens to another country to get those medicines that their doctor has prescribed for them and that they duly need, and we have a responsibility to see that they get it. Mr. Speaker, let us work to make sure that we can debate this on an open floor. Let us make sure that the Republican leadership brings this to the floor. Prescription drugs are a necessity. We have to see that they become available to those who need them.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4986, the Foreign Sales Corporation Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Act of 2000 because it will help preserve the strong financial standing of our nation's export manufactures and our economy. This debate cannot be understood without an understanding of the origin of the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC). The FSC was created by the Department of Commerce to provide incentives to increase exports by United States (U.S.) manufacturers competing against Asian and European businesses. American industry faced stiff competition from state supported foreign enterprises. FSC's were given a reduction in income taxes on net foreign profit realized from exports. An export businesses' choice to form an FSC allows it to minimize its tax bill on foreign profits between 15% and 30%. In 1998, a trade dispute arose when the European Union (EU) filed a claim against the United States arguing that FSC's were in violation of World Trade Organization's (WTO's) rules prohibiting government subsidization of exports. The EU argued that the FSC amounted to U.S. government subsidization of export businesses. The WTO dispute panel agreed with their argument and ruled accordingly. The ruling required that the U.S. withdraw the FSC provisions by Oct 1, 2000, or face sanctions. These events bring us to the floor today. The measure before us today exempts from federal taxes most income earned abroad and repeals portions of current law (PL 98-369) that created foreign sales corporations (FSCs). Under the measure as long as 50% of a manufactures goods were produced in the United States, the manufacturer could receive the same tax benefit on foreign sales. This bill satisfies the concerns of the WTO and will prevent the implementation of tariffs on potentially billions of dollars of goods made in the U.S. and exported abroad. I have opposed important trade legislation in Congress because I have been particularly concerned about the effects it would have on U.S. jobs and our economy. My review of the record concerning the repeal of Foreign Sales Corporations and its replacement gives me confidence that this measure will be good for American workers, farmers and businesses. This bill has been carefully reviewed by both Democrats and Republicans and enjoys the approval of the United States Treasury. I particularly applaud the bipartisan work of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee in resolving this matter, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and stringent opposition to H.R. 4865, the Social Security Tax Benefits Relief Act. First and foremost I must say that I am for providing tax relief to our nation's citizens. There are seniors and others in our country who are clearly in need of tax relief. However, any tax proposals that we consider should not solely benefit those at the top of the economy who are least in need of a tax break. We, as Democrats, have tried to structure targeted tax proposals that will benefit those in the middle and lowest rungs of the economic latter. This bill will benefit only the top one-fifth of Social Security beneficiaries. While many of these people are not rich, this regressive distribution of the benefits from the GOP bill is consistent with favor-of-the-wealthy trend of previous Republican tax cuts. According to the Department of Treasury, roughly half of the tax cuts passed by the House this year will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of households. The other 95 percent will share the other half. I say to those listening, do not be fooled by the misleading title given this legislation. This bill will jeopardize all that we have done to ensure that the budget is balanced in a manner that protects the longevity of Social Security and Medicare while also leaving enough aside to provide the prescription drug benefit that our nation's seniors need. This tax cut will raise the aggregate amount of tax expenditures of nearly $740 billion--rivaling the amount they attempted to pass in the 1999 tax-cut bill vetoed by the president ($792 billion). This amount threatens to liquidate nearly all of the projected budget surpluses. This latest Republican tax proposal while appearing to be a straight forward tax cut for some Social Security beneficiaries is truly a dangerous scheme that particularly threatens the solvency of medicare. The revenues collected from this tax go directly to fund the Medicare Hospital Trust fund. By depriving Medicare of this dedicated revenue stream, Republicans would create a massive, unfunded promise that explodes in the future years. Medicare actuaries estimate cumulative losses at roughly $13.7 trillion in dedicated revenue over the next 75 years. Republicans would replace a sure-thing with an IOU to be drawn on the trust fund forever. Nothing guarantees that Congress will offset this cost elswehere in the budget, or curtail other tax cuts enough to guarantee this money will be there for Medicare. Like all of the other tax cuts that the Republicans are pushing through, they are doing so knowing that this measusre is clearly headed to the long line of other bills that the President has indicated he will veto. Instead of working with the President to come up with bipartisan tax legislation the Republicans insist on pushing through thoughtless and unwise tax legislation that threatens Medicare and other important programs only to score political points in an election year. In 1995, this very same drill brought the government to a shutdown. In subsequent years, in an effort to thwart the budgetary goals of the President, they have done the same thing they are doing now, only to see their efforts stall under the weight of presidential vetoes. It is frustrating to vote against measures like this that proclaim to do good while failing to meet the clear needs of our citizens. Given the frustration we all feel here in Congress, I extend a plea to those on the other side to discontinue their efforts to score political points. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to reflect on the successes and failures that we have experienced here during the course of the District work period, so that when we return, we can come together and address the pressing needs of the American people.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to, first of all, thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for yielding the time to me, and also for offering the amendment. We in this House of Representatives, as well as Federal employees across this country, enjoy the rights of deciding a benefit given to them, along with their salary, that belongs to them to choose the health plan that suits them and their children. I believe that we ought to allow these wonderful Federal women employees that right, a right to a procedure that is legal, a right to a procedure that everywhere else, except in Federal employees status cannot be selected, because this Congress, I might add, will not allow it. I am wondering why this provision is not, as we hear so many times using authorizing on an appropriations bill, someone should rule it out of order. I believe this section 509 is authorizing on an appropriations bill and should stand on its own in proper legislation and in the proper committee of jurisdiction. Why are we now taking a procedure that is legal for thousands of women, heads of households, I am a mother, I have never had to use abortion, praise the Lord, but some people may find in their lifetime they have to make that decision. God has blessed women to bear children, and women ought to be allowed with their God and their husband or significant other to make that decision. I praise and applaud the woman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering the amendment. This amendment discriminates against women Federal employees. Who are we, 435 of the finest citizens in the most powerful government, to decide what God has decided that a woman must or must not do with her body? I think it is appalling. I think section 509 is authorizing on an appropriations bill and ought to be ruled out of order.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the FY 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I am deeply dismayed at the lack of funding for such critical, life-saving programs as debt relief, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and international family planning. At a time when many developing countries are consuming 30 to 40% of their annual budgets on debt repayment, they are simultaneously depleting monies that would be better spent on health care, education, and economic development. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2000 established clear and specific crtieria which developing nations must meet in order to qualify for debt relief. These conditions include performing satisfactorily under an economic reform program, promoting civil society participation, implementing anti-corruption measures and transparent policy making, adopting strategies for poverty reduction, and strengthening private sector growth, trade, and investment. New governments in nations such as Bolivia and Mozambique are succeeding in their concentrated efforts to democratize and stablize their respective countries, and have met the qualifying standards for debt relief. It is unjust to continue to punish the poorest civilians for debts incurred and for promises unfulfilled by former dictators. Nearly four decades of economic development, particularly on the continent of Africa, are currently unraveling before our eyes. The proposed funding level in H.R. 4811 of $202 million--$42 million less than the President's request--is simply not sufficient to effectively combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic at its current growth rate. The global AIDS crisis is a threat of unprecedented magnitude, and it has been unsparing in its attack on the world's children. UNAID reports that more than 3.8 million children under 15 have already perished as a result of AIDS. An additional 1700 children per day are newly infected with HIV and join the 1.3 million who are currently living with the disease. The U.S. Census estimates that the life expectancy in many Sub-Saharan African countries will fall to age 30 within the next 10 years. This indiscriminate plague gravely affects even children fortunate enough not to have contracted the disease themselves, by rendering them orphans--13.2 million to date. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has estimated that by the year 2010, there will be 42 million AIDS-related orphans, many of whom will be susceptible to abuse or recruitment into gangs or militia. In addition to the horrific and exponential increase in suffering and loss of human life, HIV/AIDS inevitably will have an enormous and devastating impact on future economic development, political stability, trade and commerce, and international security. Since effective medical research and counseling intervention have been proven to drastically reduce the mother-to-child transmission rate of HIV around the globe, from the United States to Thailand, there is absolutely no excuse not to help fund these vital programs. As world experts meet this week in Durban, South Africa for the 13th International HIV/AIDS Conference, we must do our part in this country and in this bill to alleviate the unimaginable suffering that HIV/AIDS is causing in the developing world. A crucial element of reducing the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is adequate access to family planning resources and information. Pregnancy, childbirth, and unsafe abortions claim the lives of 600,000 women annually, primarily due to early and frequent childbearing and poor access to health care and contraception. Family planning helps prevent high-risk and unwanted pregnancies and reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and life-threatening infections such as HIV/AIDS. The Administration's request for a $169 million increase to USAID population assistance would likely result in 1.5 million fewer unintended births; 2.2 million fewer abortions; 15,000 fewer maternal deaths; and 92,000 fewer infant deaths. I oppose this bill because it does not provide assistance to the women and families that most need our help. H.R. 4811 hinders the dissemination of accurate and complete reproductive information for women in developing countries by limiting which family planning options foreign NGOs may discuss with their clients. Under this bill, even organizations that use their own funds to engage in pro-choice lobbying efforts to provide abortions, or to even discuss this reproductive option will not be eligible for U.S. funding. I cannot morally support a measure such as this, that would not withstand constitutional scrutiny within our own country. With the understanding that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'', I would encourage my colleagues to seriously consider the moral, social, and economic ramifications of not providing aid when we, as a nation, are clearly in a position to do so. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Foreign Operations bill. We can and must do better.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my district, I was unable to record my vote on the following bills: H. Res. 534 (rollcall No. 401); H. Con. Res. 319 (rollcall No. 402); H. Res. 531 (rollcall No. 403); and H.R. 3125 (rollcall No. 404). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 401; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 402; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 403; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 404.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the foreign operations bill. I just want to speak just a moment on it. In 1992, this bill was $18 billion, at a time when our country was suffering major deficits. We were funding this bill at $18 billion and doing a better part as a leader in the world with countries around the world. The President requested $15 billion for this 2001 appropriation, and I am sad to say that the bill before us is only $13.6 billion. We are the leaders of the world. We have a surplus that we never thought we would see, over $1 trillion over the next decade. Surely, the leaders of the world, the United States of America, can share, and we want to share our tax dollars with those countries around the world because, as we say all the time, this is a global economy. We can be around the world in two or three clicks. God has blessed our country, and certainly we are in a position today to do better than the low funding that this foreign operations bill brings to us today. Mr. Chairman, HIV/AIDS. Today in Durbin, South Africa and for the last 5 days, people from around the world have been discussing, how do we attack the pandemic. What must we do to make life available for Africa, for India, and for the former Newly Independent States who are seeing a burst of the illness and disease devastate their families, their countries, and their very being. This bill does not do its part for being the leader in the world. The President recommended $240 plus million. This bill has much less than that, and it is a travesty. We can do more. We know now from our own country's experience with HIV and AIDS that prevention and education are the key to keeping the disease in control. We can do better and we ought to do better. Treatment for HIV, we know from our own experience with the disease in our country, that we can treat it, that one can live longer with it. So education, prevention and treatment are available to us. Why, then, is not the richest country in the world doing its part to make sure that we take care of the USA, of course, but also do our part around the world. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his hard work. I want to thank him for sticking with it and making certain of the commitment that he and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, made to fund Mozambique and that it does include $160 million, and I appreciate the gentleman's leadership for sticking with it when sometimes others did not want to stick with it. Mozambique has shown that they are head and shoulders above many other poor countries in the world and that they are doing their part, and I thank the gentleman very much for the appropriation that he has in this bill for Mozambique. I also want to thank the gentleman for the Phalcon sale, for seeing that it is eliminated. Prime Minister Barak, who is visiting our country today and trying to work out a peace agreement, and we all support peace in the Middle East, has withdrawn that sale, and I think the gentleman's tenacity as well as all of the Members of the Congress have made it possible that that sale has now been rejected and is off the table in our own self-interests and the interests around the world. Debt relief. There is no reason why we cannot do better with debt relief. Mr. Chairman, $82 million at a time when we have unparalleled surpluses, we can do better. This is the year of Jubilee. The Bible says that we ought to forgive debt. It has happened over and over again in other times in our existence, in the existence of human beings in this world, and today we can do that as well. IDA, International Development Assistance, a very important program that we have where we assist other countries in the world. But this bill cuts IDA over $100 million from last year's appropriation. Over 30 percent of IDA has been cut. We are the leaders of the world. We have been blessed to be born in this country. I know that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) have done their best. We can do better. I urge a no vote on this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for allowing the time for me to participate in the debate. I do not want us to lose sight on the importance of our country and who we are in the world. This is the greatest country in the world in many respects. We are enjoying a surplus in a time when many in our country are living better than they have ever lived. At the same time, many do not live as well. This foreign operations budget, as has been said over and over today, is less than 1 percent of our total budget. When we talk about debt forgiveness, we do it all the time, with our own American citizens, and we should. The S&L bailout, as we remember. We forgave a lot of those debts and many of those people involved in that scandal are living very well today. I am not opposed to it; I want us to take our responsibility as citizens seriously, to look at the world and see the ones who need forgiveness at this time. The G-8 countries of which we are the leaders to look to America to see what we do for the least of these in that G-8 environment. We have a responsibility and an opportunity to give and forgive debt for some of the poorest countries, who have no idea and cannot pay that debt, were not responsible for it. This country gave that debt to many of those leaders who are long gone. Why, then, do we today hold those same children in those very poor countries responsible? We do have standards. The IMF has standards. Bolivia, Mozambique have met those standards. But the appropriation is now not there to help those countries and other poor countries come into the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House of Representatives, debt forgiveness in this year of jubilee, taught and mentioned in the Bible, is upon us. Let us rise to the occasion, do what is right, and forgive those poor countries at a time when God has blessed us to forgive.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, due to official business in my district, I was unable to record my vote on the following amendments to H.R. 4461, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, on which rollcalls were ordered. On the amendment offered by Mr. Coburn (rollcall No. 373), I would have voted ``no;'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Royce (rollcall No. 374), I would have voted ``no;'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Crowley (rollcall No. 375), I would have voted ``aye;'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Chabot (rollcall No. 376), I would have voted ``no;'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Coburn (rollcall No. 377), I would have voted ``aye;'' and on the amendment offered by Mr. Sanford (rollcall No. 378), I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KILPATRICK

Mr. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 4680, the Medicare Drug 2000 Act. I am outraged and frustrated that my colleagues across the aisle gave us no opportunity to vote or debate our Democratic alternative. That is ironic when you consider the opposition likes to champion itself as the party choice; yet, we are denied the opportunity to vote for a different choice today. It is either the Republican plan or no plan. Can it be that they are afraid to have their bill measured against a more affordable and comprehensive prescription drug proposal that Democratic Members sought to offer but were denied by the majority? The Republican plan cannot stand up to the rigors of a full, fair and honest debate. I oppose the legislation not only on procedural grounds, but for reasons of substance as well. I believe that a prescription drug benefit under Medicare must adhere to three principles: the benefit must be universal, it must be comprehensive, and it must be affordable. The Republican proposal fails on all three times tests. This bill lacks universality. I believe a Medicare prescription drug program should be available to eligible senior citizens or disabled persons from Michigan to Maine, from Oregon to Ohio, from Alaska to Alabama. This bill does not guarantee prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries at an affordable price. It is restricted to only those who can afford to purchase private market drug plans. The Republican plan lacks a comprehensive package of benefits. My Republican colleagues point out that their plan is not a ``one size fits all'' plan. That is a cliche without meaning. I would suggest it is important to define by what ``one size fits all'' means. If one size fits all means a comprehensive set of pharmaceutical products, then I am for it. If one size fits all means that new drugs become available to everyone then I am for it. If one size fit all means that the prescription drug program is responsive to the needs of our severely disabled, then I am for that, too. The Republican plan is far from comprehensive. The Republican bill creates a multi-tiered system of coverage with the lowest beneficiaries limited to bargain basement plans. The Republican plan subsided private health insurance companies to offer ``Medigap-like'' policies providing prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Even the president of the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) has said that private insurance companies will not offer these drug policies because they do not want to assume the financial risks. Although the bill contains no set deductible or premium, it is guesstimated by members of the Ways and Means Committee that seniors will pay a $250 deductible and a monthly premium of $37 to $40--a total of $700 off the top of modest budget as the price of admission for the benefit. The only way to make an affordable prescription drug coverage for all beneficiaries is to establish a prescription drug benefit administered by the Medicare program--just like benefits under part A and part B of Medicare. We need only look at Medigap insurance premiums costs seniors are charged for prescription drug coverage. Depending on the state, drug coverage can be more than $100 per month for a person 65 years of age and more than $200 per month for a 75-year old. This plan for fails to meet the test of affordability. Another glaring defect of the Republican plan is that the benefits are not guaranteed. Medicines may be limited by private plans, and pharmacies may also be limited. Private insurers could discourage seniors with high drug costs from enrolling by offering plans that have few up-front costs such as no deductible and low co-payments but leave seniors paying a large amount before the $6,000 catastrophic threshold kicks in. Under the GOP bill, Medicare would not provide a single dollar of direct premium assistance for middle-class beneficiaries whose income is above $12,000 a year. The bill subsidizes the insurers under theory that the private sector offer drug benefit coverage at significant cost savings. Given the meager subsidies, it is very likely that the premiums would still be too expensive for many seniors. The Republican plan is all bread and no meat, a false promise to our senior citizens. The plan undermines the Medicare program by contracting out the program to private insurers who will repeat corporate subsidies and produce very little for the health security needs of the nation's seniors. What the Republicans are asking us to do today is ``buy a pig in a poke.'' Frankly, that's not good enough for us and it's not good enough for our senior citizens. We live in a special time in our nation's history. We are experiencing recorded economic growth and generating budget surpluses that are without precedent. The President's Mid-Session Review reported that budget surpluses over the next 10 years will total $4.2 trillion, a $1.3 trillion increase from the 10-year surpluses estimated in the President's budget issued last February. We have no modern day record to guide us through this period of economic prosperity. Even in era of record budget surpluses and economic growth, I recognize the importance of keeping a watchful eye on the bottom line. At the same time, we have the resources to fund a reasonable prescription drug benefit that is universal, comphrensive and affordable. The Republican plan fails. I urge my colleagues to joint me in voting against this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today, and to thank our ranking member for the tenacity that he has shown and the leadership he has shown in protecting a very important amendment as we address the high gas prices in America today. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I thank him for his work and for the product he has brought before us today. This, unlike some of the other bills, is a close call. We can support this bill. It is not perfect, it could be better, but we certainly are going to support the rule and the bill that will be before us. I want to urge the Federal Trade Commission, who has been now assigned the task, to look at the high gasoline prices that Americans are facing today. In our State of Michigan, people who are on fixed incomes, who do work, who have to drive to work, find buying gas at over $2 a gallon is too much. It restricts their family resources, it restricts what they need for their housing, what they need for their children. We ought to take a look at that. Additionally, truckers have advised me that the high gas prices really make it impossible for them to bring in revenues, bring in profits that they use to take care of their families. Many independent truckers find that the high gasoline prices, in Michigan anywhere from $2.19 to $2.39 a gallon, are not adequate. We have to look at it. I want to urge the Federal Trade Commission to take a good look. In the State of Michigan, tourism is our third revenue producer for our State. With the high gas prices, many people are rethinking their travel plans. Many people are not going to be going as far or coming to our State because of the high gasoline prices. I believe we have to do something, that we have to have the Trade Commission act on it soon and not take a long time, and at the same time, that we do not posture as Congressmen and Congresswomen to get credit. This is not a credit issue, this is an American issue. I want to thank the Committee on Rules as well as the subcommittee for doing their work. It seems possible that in this great, prosperous time of ours, we can succeed as a nation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my District, I was unable to record my vote on the amendments offered to H.R. 4690 by Mr. Sanford (Roll Call No. 322), Mr. Olver (Roll Call No. 323), Mr. Hostettler (Roll Call No. 324), Mr. Vitter (Roll Call No. 325), and on the vote for final passage of H.R. 4690, the bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State for Fiscal Year 2001 (Roll Call No. 326). Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 322, ``yes'' on Roll Call No. 323, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 324, ``yes'' on Roll Call No. 325, and ``no'' on final passage, Roll Call No. 326.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of funding for the rights of our nation's most vulnerable. Those who most often cannot afford the resources to defend themselves-- the least of those in our society who cannot simply afford to call a blue chip law firm to have their rights defended. As long as I have been in Congress, the Legal Services Corporation has been under attack. At one point my colleague across the isle even advocated eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Early in my tenure here in Congress, they alleged mismanagement. On these grounds they sought to slowly kill off the legal services corporation by gradually zeroing out its budget. Their efforts to kill Legal Services has all but failed, however, my colleagues on the other sides are, if anything, tenacious. Since they could not kill funding for legal services they have reorganized and launched a renewed attack. Now their efforts focus on limiting the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to effectively defend its constituency. Legal Services cannot participate in class actions; cannot participate in ``political litigation'', it cannot engage in litigation related to abortion; cannot represent federal, state or local prisoners; participate in challenges to federal or state welfare reforms and the list goes on and on. Despite the fact that the Legal Services Corporation has refined its case reporting systems and attempted to meet all of the demands of its critics, it is still under attack. Although opponents continue to raise unsubstantiated concerns, the real reason that this budget cuts so much funding for Legal Services is the ill advised and unrealistic budget caps enacted by this Republican led Congress. In order to meet these caps, programs, like Legal Services, that are vital to the needs of the poorest of our citizens, are the first ones targeted. Limited resources force local legal services programs to turn away tens of thousands of low-income Americans with critical, civil legal needs. A 1994 American Bar Association study concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with a serious legal situation. All of us know that our country now is engaged in horrific debate over the criminal justice system's failure to properly apply the death penalty. We are finding that those who receive the death penalty often receive inadequate representation. In addition, to Legal Services inability to participate in criminal matters, we are now faced with a bill that does nothing but worsen the ability of our citizens to receive assistance in civil litigation. I often wonder what the majorities conception for access to legal services is for our nations vulnerable. I have come to suspect they would prefer that the great nations have fallen, the likes of which include the Great Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France, in part for the failure of these nation's to provide legal redress to the complaints of the citizens with the least. As our Nation enjoys its greatest prosperity in a generation, we are duty bound to see that seniors living on fixed incomes, and poor people who have little resources are able to secure competent legal counsel when the need arises. Today's Congress Daily AM displays a full page letter from the General Counsel's of 17 of the largest fortune 500 companies urging the Congress to, at a minimum, provide funding for Legal Services at the FY 2000 ($305 million) level. The article goes on to state that the cut in funding down to $141 million provided by the FY 2001 bill would ``have a devastating impact on our system of justice. I believe we can do much better. I urge my colleagues to support the Serrano amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking. Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and saved this country from various battles across the history of our country. But it is not funded properly. In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in our country who have served this country well. I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in America, the least of these who find themselves living in public housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met. The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, free from other kinds of negative things in our budget. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress. I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak out for them.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my opposition to the amendment that is before us. The real tragedy in the House is that a couple of months ago our Committee on the Budget gave us, and this House approved in a partisan manner, unrealistic, not carefully thought out, 302(b) allocations, which are the bottom line numbers that each of the budget bills must now work within. Those numbers were not fair 2 or 3 months ago, and they are not fair today as we debate this most important issue, Native American health care, arts and humanities for Americans who deserve it. I think we do this House a disservice when we are not realistic. This country is doing better than it has done in a decade, in a generation. The budget projections that were made 2 months ago are now today further off than ever. When this fiscal year closes on September 30, our Treasury will have over $100 billion more than we thought we would have this time last year. Why then are we going through these tasks over the last couple of weeks now, debating legislation with good priorities for American citizens, and yet we are not able to fund them? I say to Members of the House, the reason is because the allocations initially approved in a bipartisan manner a few months ago were not realistic, they were not fair, and they leave a lot of money out that will be put in at the end of this process by 10 to 12 people in both Houses, cutting out over 500 people who have been elected by people across this country to represent them and to serve in this House and to make the kinds of decisions we are making tonight. It is unfortunate that we cannot fund properly Native American health care. They deserve it. As a minority myself, I would love to have my tax dollars go to them. The President was not right, this House is certainly not right, and we can do better by health care for Native Americans. It is unfortunate that we are not able to do that. If we are a body elected by the people in the freest country in the world, and we are, then we have a responsibility to do what is right, and the amendment before us does not do that. Yes, we should fund Native American health care, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is a fine gentleman. The gentleman has offered amendments in the committee, and I have supported him a number of times. This one is not the right thing to do. All great civilizations are known by their arts, their culture, their humanities, for hundreds of years after all of us leave. This country has not funded properly the arts and humanities in our country, so that our children can be beneficiaries of this great culture that we live in. So do we now use a process to take away an amendment that was passed lawfully on this floor juxtapose it against an amendment we really do need, but not in this manner? I say to you, Mr. Chairman, it is the wrong way to do it and it is not proper; that as we go through the rest of the 5 or 6 months, or less than that, 3 or 4 months of this fiscal year, we will find that the budget receipts in our Treasury are larger than we thought they would be 3 months ago. The country is doing well. Why should we have to choose between education and health care? Why should we have to choose between the arts and funding Native American health care? It is because the Republican Party wants to save hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly $1 billion, I might add, for tax cuts that the American people have already said they do not want. They want you to fund education and housing and health care; they want you to fund the environment, roads and bridges and the like. So Mr. Chairman, the amendment, though it means good, is not the right thing to do. Let us fund Native American health care. They deserve it, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned. But at the same time, let us adequately fund the arts and humanities, so that our children and grandchildren can attest to the fact that this is a great country, and that 100 years from now they will look at this 106th Congress and say that we stood up for what was right for our country and for our children. Vote against the Nethercutt amendment, and let us continue with the work of this Congress.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Today, I rise in strong and stringent opposition to H.R. 8 which will repeal the estate tax. The majority, as it did earlier this year, is pushing legislation that will benefit an important, but small portion of the American population. I object to this legislation because it is taken up at a time when the American people have, over and over, indicated that their priorities--their major concerns, are the ability of our nation's children to receive a quality affordable education and the ability to receive adequate and affordable healthcare and a reasonable minimum wage. The repeal of the estate tax is an issue that affects only 2 percent of all estates and will cost the treasury $50 billion when it is fully implemented. Last year, the Republican party failed to pass its tax plan. A plan that would decimate the budget that we have worked so diligently to balance. The Republicans have resorted to a new approach designed to pass their tax cut piece by piece, instead of the broad sweeping tax cut they earlier proposed. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the repeal of the estate tax will cost the U.S. Treasury $28.3 billion over five years, $100 billion over 10 years and $50 billion every year after 2011. In addition, the Children's Defense Fund points out that: If the same funding were instead invested in children, millions of children throughout America would get a fairer and healthier start in life. Instead this bill ignores the needs of 13.5 million children living in poverty to give only the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. In fact, 100% of the benefits from an estate tax cut will go to people in the top 5% income group, those earning at least $130,000 a year, with over 90% of the estate tax going to those in the top 1% income group, those earning at least $319,000 a year. If we are truly concerned about American small business owners and farmers who are most hurt by the estate tax, we should support the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute will effectively create a $4 million exclusion per family for farms and closely-held business. The substitute would result in a total cost of $22 billion over ten years instead of nearly $105 billion over 10 years. The substitute also provides an immediate, 20 percent across-the-board reduction to the estate and gift tax rates, with the maximum estate and gift tax rates reduced from 55 percent to 44 percent. I say to my colleagues who argue that their concern is with the American people, where is the legislation concerning healthcare? Where is the legislation concerning the education of our children? Where is the legislation addressing those who earn an inadequate minimum wage? Why are we standing here today considering a bill that only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of the American people? These are the questions that this body must address. If, however, we must address the question of the estate tax, let's do so in a manner that addresses those most hurt by the estate tax and support the Democratic substitute.