Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to district business, I was unable to be present at votes that occurred today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 2. H. Con. Res. 244, and ``yea'' on rollcall 3, H.R. 2130.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a tragic health care crisis that currently exists among African-American men in my state of Michigan, as well as across the nation, with regard to undiagnosed and undertreated chronic disease. Research has established that African-Americans exhibit a greater prevalence of chronic diseases than the general population--including diabetes, hypertension, eye disease and stroke. And African-American men often suffer disproportionately. For example, diabetes is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in African-American men. Persons affected by diabetes suffer higher rates (often double) of serious preventable complications, including blindness, lower extremity amputation and end-stage renal disease. Poorly controlled diabetes is also a ``gateway'' condition in that it leads to cardiovascular disease (including hypertension), accounting for more than two-thirds of diabetes-related deaths. These unnecessary deaths are due to underlying atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and result in heart attacks. Uncontrolled diabetes progressively leads to deterioration in health status, poorer quality of life, and ultimately, premature mortality. It is increasingly clear that serious measures must be implemented in the short-term to address the chronic disease health crisis affecting African-American men in Michigan and to turn these troubling statistics around for the longer term. Scientific studies show that these complications are preventable, and measures to implement prevention plans must be taken now. As the Federal Government evaluates the investment it should make in this particularly important area of minority and community health, I would strongly encourage cultivating partnerships with integrated health systems in the private sector who have years of substantive experience in designing highly effective community-based health programs. I have recently become aware of the successful efforts of the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI, to address the crisis through the establishment of the African-American Initiative for Male Health Improvement (AIM-HI). AIM-HI is reaching out with screening and assistance for people who suffer prevalent chronic diseases. AIM-HI provides test results, patient education and participant referrals, monitoring appointment compliance and providing assistance with finding treatment for underinsured participants who test positive. The locus of AIM-HI program services is in the Metropolitan Detroit area, where 75 percent of the Michigan target population resides. In order to reach the largest number of people in the African-American male population, AIM-HI provides program services throughout the community at churches, community centers, senior centers, parks, barber shops, union halls, and fraternal organization halls. In addition to screening, educational, and treatment access services, AIM-HI is also developing a tool to evaluate the quality of health care delivered to African-American men with diabetes and other chronic diseases. This ``report card'' assesses health care quality and effectiveness across a set of performance indicators that have been developed jointly by a panel of experts and community representatives. This initiative, sponsored by the Henry Ford Health System, is now in an embryonic stage and has had to confine itself to a narrow target population and program scope due to limited resources. Yet, it is resoundingly clear that this particular model has the potential to make a significant impact in affecting positive outcomes and health status improvement for African-American males. I would hope that as the Department of Health and Human Services develops its budget for Fiscal Year 2001, strong consideration will be given to investing federal resources in collaborative partnerships with integrated health systems in urban settings that have the expertise to develop innovative models for minority health improvements. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Porter, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Obey, for their clear commitment to improving the quality of health care for all Americans in Fiscal Year 2000. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee in the next session of Congress to increase support for critically needed minority health initiatives.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 325, which expresses the sense of this chamber that our efforts to fight against diabetes deserve increased support and funding. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from New York, Representative LaFalce, for raising the American public's awareness of this important issue. Our efforts to find new and improved treatments for diabetes and ultimately a cure are a personal issue for me. I am a diabetic. This disease has threaded its way through generations of my family, and it impacts on my daily life. Each day begins with an intake of insulin. Each meal is carefully selected to help me manage my diabetes. Each daily schedule sets time aside for physical exercise as a means of reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. Sixteen million Americans live with diabetes. In the last 40 years, the number of Americans with diabetes has increased nearly 700 percent. This dramatic growth gave cause for the Centers of Disease Control to call it the ``epidemic of our time.'' America spends $40 billion annually treating people with diabetes through Medicare, Medicaid and other health care programs. Diabetes is the sixth deadliest disease in America. Since 1980 the mortality rate due to diabetes has increased 30 percent. This trend is significant when compared to the mortality rates of heart disease and stroke, which have decreased over the same time period. The life expectancy of diabetics average 10 to 15 years less than that of the general population. The damage caused by diabetes is gradual. It occurs over a period of years, and it affects virtually every tissue of the body with long-term and severe damage. In Michigan, nearly 400,000 adults (or 5.7 percent of the adult population) have been diagnosed as diabetics. But another 2,600,000 persons in Michigan are at increased risk of undiagnosed diabetes because of the risk factors of age, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle. Diabetes contributed to the death of 7,433 Michigan residents. Research has established that African- and Hispanic-Americans exhibit a greater prevalence of diabetes than the general population. And African- American males often suffer disproportionately. For example, diabetes is the leading cause of debilitating disease and death in African- American men. Persons affected by diabetes suffer higher rates of serious, but preventable complications, including: blindness, lower extremity amputations and end stage renal disease. This spring the Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG) presented a report to Congress identifying hundreds of scientific opportunities that could lead to better treatments for the 16 million Americans with diabetes and hopefully bring about a cure. It suggested a number of research plan recommendations, including increasing the budget for diabetes research. The Labor--HHS--Education Appropriations bill increased funding by over 13 percent, and it instructed the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to move forward with the recommendations of the Working Group. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will draw on the resources from related research disciplines to increase funding for diabetes research by 15 percent overall. The bill also urged the Institute to focus increased efforts into areas of diabetes research that could lead to a cure in the short term, such as beta cell replacement and supply. For this, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Illinois, Rep. John Porter, for assigning diabetes research a high priority in NIH's Fiscal Year 2000 funding allocations. I look forward to continuing the work of my colleagues who share my interest in diabetes and diabetes research and in finding the resources necessary to increase our investment in research efforts that could lead to new treatments and, hopefully, a cure for diabetes.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to record my votes for rollcall Nos. 574, 575, and 576 considered today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 574, H. Res. 94, Recognizing the Generous Contribution made by Each Living Person Who has Donated a Kidney to Save a Life, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 575, To Amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to Reauthorize Funding for the Office of Government Ethics and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 576, H. Res. 344, Recognizing and Honoring Payne Stuart and Expressing the Condolences of the House of Representatives to His Family on his Death and to the Families of Those Who Died With Him.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act. This conference report is the culmination of years of efforts on the part of Congress, several Administrations, and federal financial regulators to create a rational and balanced structure to sustain the continued global leadership of our nation's financial service sector. This is not a perfect bill. I would like for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) provisions and the privacy provisions of the bill to be strengthened, but I understand the political process involves compromise, and this legislation represents just that. As a former member of the Banking Committee, I know that the agreement reached by the members of the Conference Committee and the Administration is built on the consensus that exists among the banking, securities and insurance firms regarding the need for this legislation. This act will benefit consumers, businesses and the economy by finally reforming our antiquated banking and finance laws. Consumers and businesses will benefit from a wider array of products and services offered in a more competitive marketplace that result directly from enactment of this law. The Act will permit the creation of new financial holding companies, which can offer banking, insurance, securities and other financial products. These new structures will allow American financial firms to take advantage of greater operating efficiencies. For financial institutions, increased efficiency will mean increased competitiveness in the global marketplace. For consumers, increased competition will mean greater choice, more innovative services, and lower prices for financial products. For the economy, this will mean better access to capital to spur growth. Since the beginning of my service in the United States Congress, I have been committed to the vitality of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). I am encouraged that this Act, for the first time, will apply CRA to banks and their holding companies as they expand into newly authorized non-banking activities. Until now, the law has permitted banking organizations to make very large acquisitions of securities firms and to engage in other non-bank activities without any CRA performance requirements at all. Under this bill, no banking organization can become involved in these new activities if any of its insured depository affiliates has a less than satisfactory CRA rating. This is a flat prohibition, and I believe a move in the right direction toward the expansion of CRA from current law. Like many of my colleagues, I stringently support the expansion of CRA. However, as a veteran legislator, I recognize that the legislative process, by definition, produces compromises by all parties. I believe that the CRA provisions in S. 900 are a good compromise toward ensuring that the modernization of our financial system works for all Americans. For the first time, financial institutions must clearly state their privacy policies to customers up front, allowing customers to make informed choices about privacy protection. The Act will require financial institutions to notify customers when they intend to share financial information with third parties, and to allow customers to ``opt-out'' of any such information sharing. Under existing law, information on everything from account balances to credit card transactions can be shared by a financial institution without a customer's knowledge. This can include selling information to non-bank firms such as telemarketers. This Act provides the most extensive safeguards yet enacted to protect the privacy of consumer financial information. The Act also provides other important consumer protections, including mandatory disclosures and prohibitions on coercive sales practices, protection of a wide variety of state consumer protection laws governing insurance sales, strengthening protections when banks sell securities products, and making full disclosures of fees at ATM machines. Madam Speaker, this Act is a step forward in improving our nation's financial service system for the benefit of consumers, community groups, businesses of all sizes, financial service providers, and investors in our nation's economy. Financial services modernization legislation has taken a long road to final passage. I remain committed to expanding access to the economic mainstream for all Americans. While not perfect, S. 900 will finally bring financial services law in step with the marketplace.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, after much deliberation and bipartisan support we have come to what we believe is an adequate compromise for our foreign operations budget. We have come a long way, and we still have yet a long ways to go, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his hard work, and the bipartisan nature for which he runs our committee; and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for all her hard work to make us a team as we work to get the best bill possible. We still have major problems in the world, that include HIV/AIDS and its epidemic that is moving across the world. We still have to build infrastructures and roads and schools and health centers so that people can live, and we have a responsibility in that as the greatest country in the world. We have a long way to go, but this is certainly a better bill than it was when it came out of subcommittee, when it came off the floor for the first conference, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. This is not perfect, but certainly it is a step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. Again, I say to our ranking member that I appreciate her leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work with her as we look to Africa and all of its natural resources and all of the things that it has to offer; that we do our part to make sure that over 750 million people on that continent have their rightful place and are able to participate in the world.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in my district yesterday, I missed four votes. Had I been available and here yesterday, I would have voted aye on roll call 559, no on roll call 560, no on roll call 561, and no on roll call 562.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today is the last day for the 13 appropriations bills. Unfortunately, the bill that will be on the floor today did not come to the House floor. The most important bill for America's families came from committee, and not to the floor so that we could debate it. This budget in its entirety does not extend the life of Social Security for one day. This budget does not offer prescription drug coverage for seniors who need it. This budget hurts American families. If you have a child and you were thinking that you were going to get them in Head Start, one of the most successful programs we have, the Head Start budget will be cut. You may not be able to have your child there. If you are a senior and you depend on Meals on Wheels, a very successful program where some seniors have this one hot meal every day, your Meals on Wheels will be cut with this budget. Nursing homes, who take care of the seniors who have made it possible for all of us to be here today, will be cut. Bad bill. Vote no.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2260, A bill which claims to promote pain relief but actually will increase the pain of many of this Nation's citizens that suffer from debilitating and incurable diseases. My opposition to this legislation is based on the premise that Federal legislators, most of whom are not doctors, should not delve, dig or pry into the intense and personal decisions made between a doctor and his or her patient. Once again, this Congress is attempting to legislate our lives most private and intimate decisions (the right to die with dignity). It is my belief that the decision to recommend this or any other medical procedure depends on expert medical judgement and therapeutic assessment. Such decisions--much like a women's decision regarding her own reproductive rights--are a physicians responsibility, within the privacy and confidentiality of the doctor- patient relationship. Like most Members of Congress, I live my life to the fullest. I never take a single moment for granted. For Members of Congress to imply or imagine collectively we know what is best for a family tortured with the final decision of life is pure folly. Again, we need to let doctors in consultation with the patients and the patients family decide what is best in each individual, unique situation. I am also alarmed by the very reason that we are considering this bill. We are considering this bill to topple the will of the people of the State of Oregon who approved, on two occasions, a measure that would legalize assisted suicide under strict and well deliberated mandates and guidelines. How ironic it is that the Congress, which claims it is the Congress of State rights, is the primary promoter of this legislation? Congress needs to state focusing on the issues that are most important to the American people. The American people continue to cry out for legislation to address education and health care. How long will the Republicans continue to ignore the citizens call for campaign finance and gun control reforms? We are simply wasting time and energy on a matter that is a decision that will eventually be determined by the Supreme Court, and an issue the States are already effectively addressing. In this crucial time, when the federal budget is in limbo, it is important that we address the real challenges and problems that need to be, and should be addressed. I am asking that we say ``no'' to the further intrusion on the work of trained, skilled professionals and let doctors, families and patients make the very difficult and hard life and death decisions in private and without the intervention of the Federal Government.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to district business, I was unable to be present at several votes that occurred today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the journal vote, ``aye'' on H.R. 754, ``aye'' on H.R. 2303 and ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 194.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, American people, do not be fooled. Who do you trust to save your Social Security System, the most important system that this government has put forward since the early 1930s? I am sure you support and trust the party who fought back an $800 billion tax cut this year that would have not put a penny into Social Security. I am sure the American people support the party who will fight, who have shown to their leadership that they, and we will, protect the Social Security system. American people, do not be fooled. Social Security is sound, and we Democrats will make sure that it will be until the new century.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representatives Mink, Woolsey, Sanchez, and Morella to restore the provisions of the Women's Educational Equity Act under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I'm disappointed that the majority has turned away from the educational needs of girls and young women. Granted, women have made tremendous progress in formerly non-traditional fields where they are underrepresented such as sports and sciences, but let's not end this program with an unfinished agenda. We can point to the accomplishments of astronaut Sally Ride and soccer heroine Christie Chastain. But our schools must do more to mold girls and young women into captains of industry and technology. When we've only just begun, the majority wants to cut short the record of our successes. I disagree, and that's why I support the continuance of the Women's Educational Equity Act. This act is the only Federal program designed specifically to increase opportunities and resources for girls and young women--the only program, Madam Chairman. Now the majority wants to eliminate it. Federal programs must show positive results to justify their reauthorization, and I am delighted to remind my colleagues of the work that's been implemented under the act. WEEA, as the act is known, supports research and development activities to help schools implement long-term practices and policies to support gender equity. Grants awarded under the program encourage women and girls to participate in academic fields and careers in which they have been traditionally underrepresented. WEEA grants go to support model teacher training programs, gender-equitable curricula, and other gender-sensitive educational materials. The program also provides funds to help educational institutions meet their Title IX obligations, which prohibits educational institutions from offering programs that discriminate on the basis of gender. Funds authorized under WEEA go to operating a resource center that provides information to educators on gender-related issues such as gender equity awareness, sexual harassment, support for adolescent girls and instructional improvements in math, science, and technology. Currently, WEEA must use two-thirds of its total appropriation of three million dollars to support gender equity implementation programs. The resources are insufficient to meet increasing demands for gender- equity technical assistance and the development of new model equity programs. With the demands for resource assistance authorized under WEEA increasing, it is native to suggest that the best days of this Act are ``behind us.'' Women have made advances under WEEA. But we still have miles to go before we can say with certainty that women have attained the level of full and equal access to all educational and career opportunities. It is for the reasons that I urge my colleagues to continue the Women's Educational Equity Act and support this important amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I was unable to be present at several votes that occurred today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 303, ``aye'' on S. 800 and ``aye'' on H.R. 2130.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act, also referred to as the Norwood-Dingell Act. We must help the poor, the uninsured, and all American citizens, in obtaining more accessible and more affordable health care. Over 60 percent of the U.S. population and over 75 percent of insured employees were covered by some form of managed care in 1997, and the numbers are growing. H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Managed Care Improvement Act would enact important changes that are necessary to improve managed care. Individuals should be assured that if they have a health emergency, the necessary services will be covered by their plan. The Bipartisan Consensus Act states, individuals must have access to emergency care, without prior authorization, in any situation that a ``prudent lay person'' would regard as an emergency. Patients with special conditions must have access to providers who have the requisite expertise to treat their problem. This Act allows for referrals for enrollees to go out of the plan's network for specialty care if there is no appropriate provider available in the network for covered services. It provides a process for individuals to select a specialist when they are seriously ill or require continued care by a specialist. It provides direct access to ob/gyn care and services, as well as access for children to pediatric specialists. The Bipartisan Consensus Act provides special protections for pregnancy, terminal illness, and individuals on a waiting list for surgery. The Act prohibits plans from gagging doctors regarding the discussion of treatment options with their patients. Consumers have the right to know all of their treatment options. In addition, patients should be protected against disruptions in care due to a change in plan or a change in a provider's network status. The Bipartisan Consensus Act provides for a strong and efficient review process, using the insurer's internal appeals process, while ensuring that a health professional performs the review. If the patient is denied care in a decision by the plan's internal appeals process, they can then appeal to an external review body that is independent of the health plan. This review process should ensure excellent care, as grievances are effectively reviewed. The Republican Health Care Access Bill does not improve health care access to those who most need improved access to health care. It does not improve the affordability of health care unless you have the extra cash to pay up front. It does not help our poor. It digs into our social security surplus by an estimated $48 billion over ten years. It does not improve access to preventative health care. The Bipartisan Consensus Act protects patients and strengthens assurances that managed care programs will improve access to emergency care, specialists and doctor information on treatment options. Furthermore, the Act provides for an improved review process that works with current insurers' appeals processes. The Act is supported by doctors. It is supported by patients. And I support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act. We must protect the health care needs of our patients and constituents, preserve social security, and ensure adequate access to health care for the poor.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, today is the most important day in the life of this House of Representatives. Will the people of America be able to have quality health care or not? Will the people of America have the opportunity to have their doctors determine their health care, their length of stay, their type of procedure; or will they turn it over to the bureaucrats, the accountant whose main purpose is to watch the bottom line. Madam Speaker, let us not take this lightly. Besides quality education, besides environment that is clean and safe, and decent housing, health care is the number one priority of American citizens. Let us not let them down. Vote for the Norwood-Dingell bill today, the most effective of all the proposals.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent support of H.R. 764, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (CAPE Act). Victims of child abuse often suffer in silence and alone, and this legislation will help shine light on those who take advantage of our Nation's most vulnerable. In the State of Michigan, every four minutes a child is reported abused or neglected. Statistics indicate that children who suffer the indignity of child abuse are far more likely to demonstrate future deviant behavior along the very same lines they suffered. Other Michigan statistics show that every 31 minutes a baby is born to a teenage mother, and every two days a child or youth is killed by a gun. How many of these additional statistics are directly related to prior child abuse? By expanding the allowable uses of grant funds provided through law enforcement grants for child abuse prevention, States will have greater flexibility in crafting solutions to the problem. The measure allows grant money to be used for abused children to testify in court through closed circuit television instead of in person. It will also help social workers, child protective workers, and law enforcement officers gain access to criminal records and court documents necessary to safeguard the future placement of children currently in abusive situations. This bill also provides an additional $10 million, increasing the total to $20 million for child protective services workers; training court appointed special advocates and child advocacy centers. These child advocacy centers will provide a centralized facility that unites all child examination and treatment services in one place. No longer will it be necessary to go from location to location in order to meet the needs of abused children. Child abuse represents a present and future threat to the well being of our society. Through affirmative and prospective steps like the one we are taking today, we could minimize this threat. I support H.R. 764 because it is time we in Congress enact legislation that addresses future problems. H.R. 764 does this, and should serve as a precedent for future bipartisan cooperation in Congress to meet the present and future needs of the Nation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for his fine leadership. One of the most important issues we will face in this 106th Congress is health care. Will Americans in the richest country in the world have available to them the health care they need for themselves and their families? Access. Will they have the access to get the health care that they need? I am afraid, my colleagues, the bill before us today does not address that issue. Our own Government Accounting Office has said to us that the poorest of the poor who are uninsured today, with this access bill before us, still will not have access. Is it the right thing to do? I think not. First of all, the bill is for the wealthiest and the healthiest. Yes, we want everyone to have insurance. Yes, we want those small business owners to be able to have insurance for themselves and their employees. But we also want the others who are uninsured to have insurance, too. All week long we have been hearing that over 40 million Americans do not have health insurance, that one out of six do not have health insurance, that 11 million children or more do not have health insurance. Will this bill address those people? In large part, it will not. It is unfortunate as we debate this subject today, with this most important issue that our country faces, that this bill continues to leave too many people out. The bill is not offset. We, in our other proposal, which is a bipartisan proposal I might add, and would cost $7 billion over the next 5 years, wanted to have offsets for it. Our leadership, the Republican leadership, said no. This bill will cost $40-plus billion. It is not paid for. It is not offset. And we think that is unfair and unconscionable. It does not improve the affordability of health care if an individual does not have the up-front money. Many families and many children who live in those families do not have that. It does not help the poorest of the poor in America. When will they have access? It digs into our Social Security Trust Fund in that it will take out from the Treasury before we put into it. It is not fair. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, let us not adopt this. Let us get back to work on a real bipartisan solution that actually accesses those things that people need to carry on their daily lives. It is a bad idea; it is a bad bill; and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the FY 2000 Conference Report on Transportation Appropriations. I would like to commend the work of my Chairman, Mr. Wolf and My Ranking Member, Mr. Sabo, as well as all of the other members of the Subcommittee and staff who worked extremely hard to make this a good bill. The FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations Conference Report Addresses the Needs of the Nation As members of Congress and this Subcommittee it is our job to focus on the present and future transportation needs of the country. Today our communities face old and deteriorating transit systems. Our green spaces shrink in the shadow of urban sprawl, and massive commuter traffic flows have turned our freeways and highways into rolling parking lots. As our economy continues to grow there is more and more pressure on our highways, skyways, roads and railways. Increased trade with our neighbors in Canada and Mexico means that we in Congress will have to work harder to maintain the quality and safety of our roads, highways and borders. We have worked hard in Subcommittee to address these problems. This bill increases funding for the Coast Guard by $129 million dollars to $4 billion. The job of defending our coastline from the creative tactics used by drug smugglers has become more and more difficult. I will personally seek to find funding that allows the Coast Guard to address these difficulties and prevent drugs from reaching our neighborhoods. The Conference Report provides over $20 billion for highway obligations for TEA 21 guaranteed levels. These funds will go to important highway projects aimed at upgrading deteriorating highways and eliminating gridlock. The FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations Conference Report Addresses the Needs of the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan The state of Michigan will receive an outstanding $27.5 million dollars in funding for buses and bus facilities. In Detroit, the city I represent, these funds will go to projects like Time Transfer Centers to help those transitioning from welfare to work. By providing child care, retail, training, government and other needed services, these Centers will give people the tools they need to successfully empower themselves. In 1999, Detroit was hit by paralyzing snow storms that shut down city streets for days on end. This bill provides funding that will help efficiently deal with weather emergencies. Funding provided in this measure will aid in the Development of Intelligent Transit Systems that use computer aided technology. I have also secured funding to aid in the development of High Speed Rail between the City of Detroit and Chicago. High Speed Rail will give the citizens of Michigan an added choice in travel along this vital national corridor. During the debate on the Transportation Appropriations Conference Report of FY 1998 I voiced my dissatisfaction with the level of funding provided the state of Michigan. Today, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I stand poised to rectify this situation. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 2084.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, in the five months since the shooting of 16 innocent high-school children at Columbine High School in a suburb of Denver, Colorado, over 500 American citizens have died as a result of gun violence. What has the Republican leadership in Congress done to address this problem? Absolutely nothing. What is worse, the motion offered by Congressman John Doolittle does even less. This motion, which says that anything during the conference of the Juvenile Justice bill that could possibly harm the Second Amendment to the Constitution should be rejected, is a terrible motion. It is terrible because Congress should protect our neighborhoods, our police departments, and the American people. This motion does protect one group of individuals--the gun lobby. I make no apologies for standing up for our neighborhoods, our police departments, or the citizens of the 15th Congressional District of Michigan. This motion does not protect our neighborhoods. Several Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have offered reasonable, sane, and safe recommendations regarding gun control. The issue of guns is one that cuts across the whole of America's fabric, but it especially harms minorities and urban areas--similar to the area which I am honored to serve. By limiting the options of Members to posit real and reasonable constitutional limits to control the glut of guns in our nation, this motion makes our neighborhoods unsafe. All we are asking is that gun dealers perform background checks, that child safety locks be sold on handguns, and that former criminals be prevented from buying guns. This motion does not protect our police departments. The Fraternal Order of Police Officers and the International Association of Police Chiefs have endorsed measures similar to the Brady law. These same organizations have both supported measures that would get rid of ``cop killer bullets'', assault weapons and high-powered rifles. This motion would, incredibly, not allow these measures to be considered by the conferees. This motion does not protect the Constitution. We have all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. It is Congress' job to make laws; it is the job of the women and men of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. We do not need to establish the precedent of ``pre- interpreting'' the Constitution for the sake of a sound bite or political folly. This motion removes the option of interpreting the Constitution from the Judicial branch, presupposing that Members of Congress know what is best for the Constitution. I will continue to fight for our Constitution. I will continue to protect our children, our senior citizens, our neighborhoods, our police officers. I say no to the glut of guns on our streets and to the gun lobby. I urge my colleagues to say no to the Doolittle motion.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 180, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency. This resolution is largely another attempt to smear the policy of an Administration that has been under scrutiny for quite some time now. I will not support transferring a battle regarding our Administration's scruples into attempts to reflect a similar suspicious light on our Administration's policy. This resolution was not reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which is the Committee of referral. In fact, the resolution was not even submitted until one day before the vote. Most of the Puerto Rican nationalists who were granted clemency have already served at least 19 years of their sentences. Our Constitution clearly states that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. It does so because the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and facts that apply in each request for clemency. We, as individual Members of Congress, have neither the time nor the staff to individually review the Administration's belief that the sentences were out of proportion with the offenses. For this precise reason, bills are referred to the committees that can provide such expertise. It is a shame that we would not take the time to allow expert evaluation of the level of merit behind this resolution and refer this resolution to the Judiciary Committee. This is neither the time nor the topic for political pandering. Terrorism and clemency are matters to be taken very seriously. They are not to be used for political games. I will not support turning the fight against terrorism into a political game, and that is why I am voting against this bill on final passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2684, the fiscal year 2000 VA/HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. In July of this year, the House Appropriations Committee completed a ``mark-up'' of the VA/HUD bill rendering deep cuts in funding for veterans, housing and NASA. The overall cuts in these programs will hurt our nation's ability to provide safe, affordable housing, economic opportunities, and health care for veterans. These cuts will also devastate NASA and the Nation's preeminence in space science and exploration. Because of these unacceptable cuts, I voted against this bill in the Appropriations Committee and I will continue to vote against this bill. If this bill passes, the $1.6 billion in HUD cuts alone will have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide. Overall, the HUD cuts represent: an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low- income families in America at a time when worst case housing needs are at an all-time high; 16,000 homeless families and persons with AIDS who will not receive vital housing and related services; and 97,000 jobs that will not be generated in communities that need them. The potential impact of the HUD budget cuts on the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent, are dismal and economic development activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program will be cut by $250 million from the level enacted in 1999, and $5 million will be cut from the job-generating Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. This means that approximately 97,000 jobs that could be created by these programs will not be. These cuts will impact the creation of approximately 191 jobs in my district. Mr. Speaker there are several communities that still struggle in the slow lane of the Nation's strong economy. The 15th Congressional District of Michigan cannot afford to lose one potential job, nor can it afford to lose the $1,385,000 total it will lose if this bill passes. Despite a booming economy, the number of families with worst case housing needs (defined as paying over 50 percent of their income on rent) remains at an all-time high of 12.5 million people, including 4.5 million children, 1.5 million elderly, and 3.5 million persons in families on welfare. The cuts in this bill will result in a total of over 128,000 families being denied housing vouchers. 88 of the families being denied housing vouchers as a result of this bill are from my district. We should be expanding rather than cutting the supply of affordable housing for all Americans. If we do not take care of our nation's most vulnerable citizens during economic plenty, when will we open doors for all Americans? Although the bill increases funding for veterans health care by $1.7 billion, the funding is short of the approximately $3 billion, advocated by most of the major veterans organizations, that is needed to keep pace with the health care needs of veterans. Representative Lane Evans, ranking Democratic member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, has indicated that he is also in opposition to this bill because of this funding shortfall. The bill slashes funding for key NASA science programs. It cuts the request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $274 million which will eliminate funding for almost 14,000 researchers and science and mathematics educators. The reduction alone will undermine the Nation's investment in discovery and education which has fueled unprecedented economic growth for the past decade. The bill cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Operating Program and will result in personnel reductions that will hamper efforts to protect public health and the environment, and prevent the EPA from undertaking initiatives designed to improve the quality of the Nation's air, water, and food supply. The bill also cuts $50 million each from the request for the Superfund program and for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program. Mr. Chairman, I believe these budget cuts will move America in exactly the wrong direction. In this era of unprecedented economic prosperity we should be expanding, not cutting programs that meet our vital needs of housing, economic opportunity, health care for veterans, and our preeminence in space science and exploration. For these reasons, I vote ``no'' on the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to support and am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment that we offered in the Committee on Appropriations. I agree with the delegate, the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton) that it is unconstitutional, it is unfair, and it is undemocratic. This entire D.C. appropriations bill is $463 million. The D.C. residents in 1996 sent over $4 billion to this Federal government. In 1997 the same, over $4 billion to this Federal government. The bill today is only $463 million. Members have heard debate over the last hour on the needle exchange program. We are not going to get into that, but the citizens do have a right, as every citizen of the country has, to spend its local money on those things that they deem necessary for their people. This amendment that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I were offering would say that the residents of the District of Columbia can spend their local dollars to go to court to challenge the notion that they cannot vote in this Congress, that they do not have a voting representative in this Congress. The District of Columbia has more population than three of America's States. All of those States have representatives in this Congress who vote. They all have two Senators in the U.S. Senate who vote. Why, then, do we deprive over 500,000 people who have chosen Washington, D.C. as their place of residence the right to have a vote in this Congress, the right to have two Senators, as all other States have, and the right to use their own local money for those programs that they deem necessary? The Congressional Research Service goes just a little bit further. They say that the District of Columbia, which is denied the right to vote, should have a representative in Congress. District residents carry some of the same burdens of citizenship that all American citizens pay and do. They pay taxes, they serve in our wars, they die in our wars. Still, this Congress will not allow them to use their own local funds to challenge in court, and I might add, as the delegate has mentioned, on a pro bono basis, as some have already said, yes, we support D.C., we want to go to court to fight for the right to vote. Why, then, does this Congress not allow the D.C. residents, with the backing of its mayor and its council and its delegate, permission to use their local funds that they also pay, in addition to their Federal funds, allow them the right to go to court and use those funds to defend their right for a vote in this Congress, for a vote on those referenda that they deem necessary? Mr. Chairman, this is not right, it is not fair and it is not Democratic. As was mentioned earlier, over 500,000 people call D.C. their home. They pay Federal taxes, over $4 billion to this Federal Government. The bill before us is $463 million. Additionally, they pay local taxes. What we are saying in our amendment, allow D.C. to use their local money to go to court should they want to, to defend their right to vote. This is a glorious country, the best country in the world. The citizens of D.C., American citizens, over 500,000 of them, deserve the right to use their local funds as they see fit. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt this amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I want to first start off thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and his staff for working with us in a bipartisan way. And a special thanks to my ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has certainly shown her leadership and allowed me to participate in the process adequately. This bill before us today, this foreign operations bill, I am told sometimes takes a day and a half and hours to complete. As my first year on this subcommittee, I found that working with the chairman and ranking member and working with the two sides to be quite enjoyable as well as educational. While I support the bill and have in committee, I always said that it was underfunded. And we said that from our side of the aisle. I say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), although we respect his hard work, we believe it is underfunded. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) in his earlier remarks stated that this country still provides less foreign aid around the world than any of the other developed GA countries in the world. We can do better. But I want to commend our chairman and ranking member for increasing our appropriations to Africa for the first time, a continent with over 750 million people who are in dire need. Some of the poorest of the poorest countries, as said by Mr. Wolfensohn earlier this week as we had breakfast with him, President of the World Bank, debt relief, yes, they need it. But it is not a panacea. What they need is education and health services and other kinds of attention paid to their country so that their people and their children can come up into the 21st century. It is important that as we move this foreign operations bill forward we let everyone know that, yes, it is a good bill and it was worked on bipartisanly, but it does still need more funding. We are very concerned about the $200 million that was cut from full appropriations from the IDA account, which again is money that goes to the poorest of the poorest nations so that those children and those nations can be educated, can have the health services that they need. We are concerned about the Smith amendment that will be coming up this afternoon. It is unfair. We hope that it will not be attached to this wonderful bill that we have worked out to date. HIV-AIDS, a curse as we move to the 21 century, devastating the African continent today, India tomorrow, the U.S., and countries around this world. Will we do our part as American citizens, the finest country in the world, to provide the assistance, the education, the treatment, the research that we know to get rid of this dreaded disease? Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his leadership and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for her concern and her leadership as we work in a bipartisan way. This Congress can work on good legislation bipartisanly when we work together and commit to doing that. Thanks to the staffs. Thanks to our ranking member.