Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting us know that the amendment has been stricken and made in order, that the Norton-Kilpatrick amendment will be able to be debated. I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Madam Speaker, there are 500,000 people who choose to call Washington, D.C. their home. This rule is undemocratic, and it is unfair. My colleagues may not know it, but the residents of D.C. pay both local and Federal taxes. Last year, some $4.2 billion worth of Federal taxes were paid, more than some States pay. My colleagues may not know it, but D.C.'s population is larger than three other States in our Union who are represented by two Senators, as well as Congress people in this House of Representatives. The rule that was let yesterday from the Committee on Rules does not allow the District to operate as any other American jurisdiction would be allowed to do so: with its own local tax base. I think it is unconscionable, it is undemocratic, and it is unfair. Madam Speaker, D.C. residents are taxpaying American citizens and are denied full representation here in the Congress. Some of the amendments that are allowed in order ought not be in an appropriations bill, they should go through the regular process. It is a bad rule, it is unfair, it is undemocratic, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, when one only has 2 minutes, one can only say so much. But what I want to say here today, this is a first step. There has not been another before it. America is ripe for the building of Africa, and so are we as Africans in this country and Africans abroad. Let us support this bill. Let us work with the African Ambassador Corps and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. Let me commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our chairman, for having the sensitivity to increase the appropriation so that we can rise up and build on the African continent. I rise today in strong support of strengthening Africa's role in the international economic community. I rise today in strong support of the people of the second largest land mass on our planet. I rise today in strong support of the land of all of our biological origins. I rise today in strong support of economic self-sufficiency and sufficiency for Africa and her peoples. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 424, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. It is, indeed, long overdue for Africa to take her place at the international table of economic opportunity. On the pantheon of world history, Africa is a newborn. In the last decade, we saw the fall of one of the last old-line colonialist nations when apartheid ended in South Africa. The first African nation to gain a semblance of independence was the nation of Ghana in the mid 1950s under the late Kwame Nkrumah. Since then, many nations in sub-Saharan Africa have not struggled from outright colonialism, but the more surreptitious and sinister demon of neo-colonialism. What is neo- colonialism? While many sub-Saharan African nations gained political independence, their economic purse strings were controlled by their former colonizers. This is neo-colonialism, something that we must never repeat in Africa or throughout the world. It is one of my goals, as a Member of Congress, to ensure that Africa becomes economically self-sufficient. I am proud and an original cosponsor of both AGOA and H.R. 772, the HOPE for Africa Act. It is my belief that these initiatives are not mutually exclusive, and I hope that some of the vital components of the HOPE for Africa are incorporated into AGOA to make it an even stronger bill. The African Growth and Opportunity Act assists African nations in the often difficult transition from receiving developmental assistance to economic self-reliance through increased trade and investment opportunities. Economic development is promoted by establishing a new trade and investment partnership between the U.S. and the democracies of sub-Saharan Africa. There are many steps to promoting sustainable development. This initiative, which has strong bipartisan support, moves this process forward by promoting trade while supporting debt reduction and increased development aid for African countries. Let me point out some of the important and salient points regarding the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): AGOA would increase U.S.-Africa high-level dialogue. AGOA creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum to facilitate such high-level discussion on trade arrangements. The bill also improves private sector and non-governmental dialogue by encouraging U.S. private sector and NGOs to host annual meetings with their respective sub-Saharan Africa counterparts. AGOA supports debt relief by expressing the sense of Congress that the Administration should forgive concessional debt owed to the U.S. by the poorest sub-Saharan countries. AGOA expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a corporation that I believe to be very effective in promoting exports, should initiate more equity funds in support of sub-Saharan African countries, as well as revising the composition of the OPIC board of directors to require at least one of the eight presidentially-appointed directors to have extensive sub- Saharan Africa private sector experience. AGOA improves current workers rights. The trade benefits within this bill are extended under our Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which contains workers protections. The GSP statute requires beneficiary countries to have taken or be taking steps to afford internationally recognized workers rights, defined as freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, prohibition against forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work and occupational health and safety. This bill expands trade opportunities by increasing access to the U.S. market for non-import sensitive goods and textiles. Of course, Africa must make continual progress toward achieving the bill's economic criteria, while maintaining the same requirements--as always-- for existing trade and aid benefits to Africa. I support trade and investment in Africa, and I hope you do too. I will be the first to acknowledge among my colleagues that while AGOA is not perfect, AGOA is a step in the right direction. For the first time in this century, Congress is taking real and positive steps toward ensuring that Africa is a fair trading partner with the United States. My colleague, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has a worthy bill, sections of which I hope can be incorporated within AGOA as it moves forward this Congress. I would personally like the canceling of even more African debt and requiring multinational companies in Africa to abide by U.S. environmental standards in Africa. I do believe, however, that AGOA is moving in the right direction by increasing the vital dialogue and interaction that is needed on all levels. This dialogue only helps the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa to learn about each other and mutually beneficial business practices and opportunities. It is time for Africa to move along the path to effective economic self- sufficiency. H.R. 434 is a start on the path to true economic self- sufficiency for Africa that can only improve the lives of her people.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for his leadership, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and others who have worked diligently on this bill. As an African-American woman living in America, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is it a start? Yes, it is. There are over 750 million Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa who want this bill. The leadership corps here in Africa, the Ambassador Corps who sits here in our Chamber want this bill. The African presidents who are represented by their ambassadors want this bill. We have got a President for the first time in history of this country who has not only visited Africa but has put his support behind this bill. I am a member of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. For the first time in the history of this country, we will have an appropriation that begins to meet the needs of the African continent. The land is fertile. The people are ready. Its leadership is in place.

Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I strongly stand here to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). A sense of the Congress is just that, that we sense that we ought to take an action. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to report that our subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), recognizes this, and we are going to and have on the subcommittee the appropriations for HIV-AIDS in Africa. It is a tremendous problem, but we are working on it. The sense of the Congress is the first step. The action to get it done is the next, and we are moving on that.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, as a woman that God has created, and many of us around this world, many of us feel very passionately that we have the right to choose, to choose with our God and our husband or significant other whether we will, in fact, bear children and whether we will, in fact, bring that pregnancy to term. I rise today in support of the DeLauro amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment. 1.2 million Federal employees, women of reproductive age, do have the will but not the right to use their health plan for the health benefit that they would choose if they wanted to have an abortion. 1.2 million women, many of whom work in this House of Representatives, cannot choose a health plan and use an abortion coverage. As was mentioned by our ranking member, when we hire an employee, as employees all over the country know, they have a choice as to which plan they want to pick and which services they want to use in their health care plan. What we are saying in this amendment is give the women of the Federal Government who work all over this country, some 1.2 million of them, that same opportunity. Every employee in this country has a right to choose the health care plan with the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion, except Federal employees. I find that inherently wrong, as a woman, as a mother, as one who God has made to be able to reproduce. It is unfortunate this amendment has to come before this House. This bears repeating. It is a medical procedure that is legal, an abortion. I know, in my history as a 20-year public employee, we are not going to change people's opinion one way or the other on abortion. It is a very private, personal decision that each individual must make. But the amendment is a good one. Let us not deny the 1.2 million Federal employees all over this country and, yes, who work for this Congress the opportunity to pick the health coverage that they want. Mr. Chairman, let us support the DeLauro amendment. Let us support the 1.2 million women who serve our country across this country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business, I was unable to record my vote for several measures considered in the House of Representatives today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on approving the Journal; ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 107; and ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 117.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things that this Congress can do is to pass an effective health plan for American citizens. That is why I am happy that 168 Democrats signed a discharge petition yesterday to bring our Patients' Bill of Rights to the House floor. Let us debate it, debate it now. Yesterday, the Nation's doctors passed a resolution to unionize. They want to be able to practice medicine, to decide which care their patients should have, to decide what medicines, the length of stay their patients need. Let us have meaningful debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights today. It is important, Americans want it, and Democrats want to get the job done.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of our subcommittee, for his tireless, equal, just work and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, who has certainly been a leader in providing for each of us the input we have wanted as we discussed this transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. As a member of Michigan's appropriations transportation team for 14 years, I find coming here to the United States Congress to be quite a blessing to work in a bipartisan way on such a very important bill that affects all of us as American citizens. We heard a lot of testimony on truck safety and what we need to do to begin to address it, and we did that in a bipartisan fashion. I know there were many, many requests for transit assistance and because of the limited dollars that we are able to work with, we were not able to fill all of those. We hope to work more on this. I thank the committee and the staff for, in a bipartisan way, making sure that we did what we could with those dollars that were available to us. A few of my colleagues from Michigan are a bit upset that some of their concerns were not taken into heed, and that is mainly because I did not know about them, but I will work with the entire Michigan delegation as we move to conference. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) have certain interests that they would like to see addressed. Again we will work with them as we move to conference. As a new member of this subcommittee and under the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this most important, very fine, bipartisan appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support for H.R. 2084, the Transportation Appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. This responsible, reasonable and rational bill is the result of a lot of hard work, long hours and diligence on behalf of both my Democratic and Republican colleagues and staff, and shows that Congress can be both fiscally prudent and make a real change for improving the transportation needs of our nation. As one of the newest members to the august Appropriations Committee, I am pleased to be part of this debate that will be the first bill from one of the two subcommittees on which I am honored to serve. While this bill provides $50.7 billion in total funding to highway, highway safety, and mass transit programs, almost 70 percent of this money is part of the guarantee from the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century, or TEA-21. As my colleagues know, this money is beyond the scope and control of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. As we point out in our Committee Report, the funding increases associated with TEA-21 have used up most of the 8.5 percent increase in outlays allocated for the next fiscal year. As a result, we had to make many difficult decisions with the meager amount of funds that was available. This bill does many great things, and I would like to point out some specific additions: The bill will expedite the backlog of sexual harassment cases at the FAA. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey is to be commended for her hard work and effort at eliminating the problem of sexual harassment at the FAA, and we were successful in getting language added that would hopefully eliminate this backlog of cases. The bill provides that the Department of Transportation work hard to ensure that qualified small businesses, women-owned businesses, and minority-owned businesses get their fair share of the advertising pie. This bill provides more funding for road safety and innovative programs that will make travel safer for all Americans. I am especially honored to serve on this Subcommittee as I served the majority of my career as an elected member for the Michigan House of Representatives on the same Subcommittee. As such, I have over 20 years of experience working with transportation-related issues and budgets for the State of Michigan, and I am glad to be able to use this knowledge to improving the transportation needs of all Americans. As the first Democratic Member of this Committee since the retirement of Congressman Bob Carr, I want to add and note that I am ready and willing to work with all of the different transportation entities of the State of Michigan to ensure that Michigan retains its fair share of these meager resources. While we were not able to meet everyone's transportation needs, it is my sincere hope and desire that we will be able to sit down together and try to help my colleagues during conference committee. As I said earlier, I want to work with all of my Michigan colleagues--Democratic and Republican alike--during conference committee on this bill. I want to, however, cite some specific examples. Congressman Dale E. Kildee has been ardently working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to secure funding to upgrade the antenna system at Bishop Airport. According to the December 8, 1998 edition of the Flint Journal, ``In dozens of documents cases this year, air traffic controllers have lost radar signals of aircraft in Flint's airspace. Federal Aviation Administration documents show the radar is not scheduled to be replaced until September 2002. FAA officials, controllers and technicians have said they do not believe the system's weaknesses are compromising the safety of pilots and fliers, but could cause delays and added stress for controllers.'' Because Congressman Kildee was focusing his efforts at the FAA, Congressman Kildee was not able to make a formal request to the Subcommittee in time for consideration of this budget. I want to make a formal request that, among my Michigan colleagues, we give full consideration to Congressman Kildee's issue, and hope that we can work out something during conference consideration. I also wanted to assist Congressman John Lewis of Georgia in confronting the difficult task of meeting the transportation needs of a rapidly growing population in Atlanta, Georgia. Congressman Lewis is seeking support for expanding the service of his region's wonderful Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and it is also may hope that we are able to work with Congressman Lewis during conference committee on this issue as well. Finally, I would like to once against thank the hard work that Ms. Cheryl Smith and Mr. John Blazey on putting this whole package together. Sometimes, we forget that we are fortunate to have a dedicated staff willing to pay the price of long hours and thankless service that public service requires. Again, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement and stringent opposition to H.R. 1501, the Republican Juvenile Justice Act. This bill will not solve the perplexing problem of juveniles and crime; it is an absurd waste of taxpayers' dollars and the precious time of this august body. It is a shame that while the Senate was able to forge a bipartisan juvenile justice bill, the House has been unable to do so. This is a bipartisan problem that needs, deserves and requires a bipartisan solution. My initial objection to H.R. 1501 is that it was not considered in the House Judiciary Committee. No hearings were held, no testimony was received and there is no Congressional Record on this bill. As an elected Members in the great State of Michigan and the U.S. House of Representatives for almost a quarter century, I respect the due process that the State Constitution of Michigan and the Constitution of the United States establishes for the legislative process. We have all taken an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, and I abhor the lack of due process that this important issue deserves. I also oppose this bill because this bill is a waste of taxpayers dollars. The Wall Street Journal (March 21, 1996) points out that high risk youths who are kept out of trouble through intervention programs could save society as much as $2 million per youth over a lifetime. This bill puts more money into police and prisons, mandatory minimum sentences, and other tactics that simply do not work without adequate prevention programs. As a matter of fact, only six percent of juvenile arrests in 1992 were for violent crimes. With one exception, the level of juvenile crime has declined over the past 20 years. There are only 197 juveniles currently serving Federal sentences. Juvenile crime is almost exclusively a State and local issue. This bill is just posturing for political points, not an effective means for public safety. The acknowledged experts in this field--the police chiefs of our nation-- believe that prevention programs are the most effective crime reduction strategy versus hiring additional police officers. This bill spares not one thin dime for before- or after-school prevention programs--programs that have been proven to work. Let me illustrate a program that does work. Renaissance High School, a public school in Detroit, Michigan, will send all of its graduates-- 183 students--to college. According to an article in the June 17, 1999 edition of the Detroit News, Renaissance High School's principal, Irma Hamilton, says that ``Renaissance's success is dependent upon three different levels: students, parents and staff. It takes those three areas working together to provide a network of support for our students.'' It is only by working together that Renaissance High School achieved a 100 percent college acceptance rate. I challenge any of my colleagues to the superb work that is epitomized by Renaissance High School. Not only that, Renaissance High School's teamwork is an example that is sorely lacking in the debate on the juvenile justice bill. My colleagues, we do have a chance to make this right. It is in the amendment, offered as a motion to recommit, by my fellow Detroit colleague, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. This amendment is a balanced, fair and comprehensive package that addresses both prevention and punishment. This bill provides grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile offenders; provides funding for prevention programs; places 20,000 crisis prevention counselors in our nation's schools; ensures that there are more police officers on the beat; prevents juvenile delinquents from being jailed with adults; and requires states to address the issue of minority confinement. While minority children are one-third of the youth population, they are two- thirds of the children in long-term detention facilities. Studies indicate that minorities not only receive tougher sentences, but are more likely to be put in jail than non-minority youth for the same offenses. This is patently unfair and, I would add, criminal. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am one of the guardians of the purse of America. I abhor the wanton waste of the people's money, and my fellow appropriators and I have to make tough decisions with the few funds we have available. We need to put our scarce resources into programs and projects that work. The taxpayers of America demand that we do so. The Democratic alternative to H.R. 1501 gives us that chance. It is a balanced approach to fighting juvenile crime that includes enforcement, intervention and prevention. Anything less is an injustice to our youth, their parents, and all taxpaying citizens.

Mrs. KILPATRICK

Mrs. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to save America's children.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was not able to record my vote for two measures considered in the U.S. House of Representatives today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall number 170, and I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall number 171.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to official business in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to record my vote for several measures considered today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on approving the Journal; ``aye'' on H.R. 435, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999; and ``aye'' on H.R. 1915, To Provide Grants to States to Improve the Reporting of Unidentified and Missing Persons.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops, our service men and women who serve this country. I support the people in Central America who were devastated by Hurricane Mitch. I support the American farmers who have made it possible for us to eat and to export and to feed the world. I also support FEMA and Oklahomans and all those who have been devastated by the recent tragedy. But I also support the millions and millions of Americans who need housing, who need the assistance from our community development block grant program, who need transit opportunities so they can get to their doctors, to buy their food and the like, people who need housing. This is a wonderful supplemental, but it leaves out too much of my district. I cannot support it. It is unfortunate that we have a $15 billion supplemental, $13 billion of which is not offset, and $2 billion which is offset. Too much pain for those in America who need it. Vote no.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding me the time, a new member on the committee, for this most important discussion. It is not whether we support our troops or not. We all do. We support them because they are risking their lives for us as the greatest country in the world. What we do not support at this time is the doubling of appropriations that our President gave us. We are 2 months away from doing the 2000 budget. We ought to be using this time and the extra $6 billion to put during that time in the appropriations process. It is important that we take care of education for our children, health care for our seniors, housing for those who need it. It is unfortunate we will not be able to get to that during this budget time because of the caps, the political caps that were set. Let us not say we do not support the troops, because we do. Let us support the President, our troops, and the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999. More than half of this bill's $13 billion appropriation is being used for funds that will eventually come from the budget surplus, and only illustrates the collective cowardice of the majority in refusing to consider these military construction projects under normal budgetary procedures. In essence, this bill gives to the military and takes from Social Security and Medicare. What is worse is that the doubling of the increase of this bill, from President Clinton's original request for $6 billion to $13 billion, has not seen a resulting increase in aid to the refugees or in humanitarian aid, ostensibly a key part of this bill's original purpose. As one of the newest members on the House Appropriations Committee, I know that Appropriations are about three things: what you need, what you want, and what you'd like to have. This bill was half of what we need, some of what members want, and no increase in what the refugees would like to have. In order to accurately discuss this vote, we must first place these issues into context. After the breakdown of peace talks between Serbian and Kosovar representatives in Rambouillet, France in mid-March, Serb forces entered the Yugoslav province of Kosovo en masse. An estimated one million Kosovar Albanians have since been driven from their homes, most into Albania and Macedonia, thousands of Kosovar Albanian men remain missing, and reports of rape and murder continue to trickle out of the embattled region. In response, on March 24, 1999, NATO began a massive bombing campaign against Yugoslav forces and installations in Serbia and Kosovo. Close to 1,000 NATO warplanes are now involved in the airwar (with over 80% from the United States). President Clinton recently called up an additional 33,000 reservists to aid in the fight, and asked Congress for $6.0 billion in supplemental funds to pay for current operations. This $6 billion request more than adequately addresses the commitment of the United States to this unified effort. The Republicans on the House Appropriation Committee drafted a $12.9 billion emergency FY99 supplemental spending bill. On top of the White House's $6.05 billion spending request for the Kosovo mission, Republican appropriators included $1.8 billion to fund a pay raise and retirement package through the remainder of FY99, and the bill includes an additional $74 million in unspecified worldwide ``minor'' construction projects, provides additional funding for munitions purchases and operational readiness needs, such as recruitment, replacement of spare parts, equipment maintenance and military base operations, primarily with additional funds for operational readiness and for a military pay raise and retirement package. The bonus of this additional $6 billion in funding is that it does not have to be offset by similar reductions in spending in other programs. This is nothing but fiscal legerdemain, a sorry billion-dollar version of the old New York City street con of the three shells and the pea. Unfortunately, the elderly and the poor are the hapless victims of this con job. The majority of the Democratic members on this Committee see this for what it is: nothing but an attempt to fund defense projects that will not fit within the tight spending caps for FY00. I must reiterate one key point: there is not one thin dime of an increase in refugee assistance funding in this bill. There are certainly many items within this legislation that are probably worthy of the support of scarce taxpayer dollars. Let me make this clear: I do not oppose the hard working and brave persons in our nation's Armed Forces from getting a well deserved pay increase, better housing, a much improved retirement program, or other such items as needed. I object that my Republican colleagues do not have the collective courage to make the hard decisions and difficult choices inherent in being a member of the august House Appropriations Committee. What is becoming abundantly clear is one thing: the budgetary caps on spending will have to be increased. Only then will Congress be able to address our urgent domestic needs, preserve our vital fiscal surplus, and protect our nation's seniors who have already paid the price for the freedom that most of us enjoy but all of us take for granted. Our colleague, Congressman David Obey, will offer a sensible amendment that provides a total of $11 billion in funding. Of this sum, funds that do not have to be authorized will go toward an immediate pay increase for the military; an increase in the operations and maintenance in Kosovo, and more importantly, $175 million more for the refugees of Kosovo. If Congressman Obey's amendment is reasonable, sensible, and deserves the support of the majority of our colleagues. I would like to paraphrase a recent article in the New York Times, in closing, on this issue: This is nothing but Republican cowardice triumphing over principle; don't vote for the war, don't take responsibility for the war, don't vote to stop the war, but vote to pump more money into a policy we don't like. American taxpayers pay us a good sum of money to make difficult decisions, and it is time that we stepped up to the plate and made them. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress will prevail in supporting the amendment of Congressman Obey. Without the adoption of the Obey amendment, this bill must be rejected by the House of Representatives. Congress must preserve the surplus for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We must increase the caps on domestic and defense spending, and do so while maintaining the integrity of our balanced budget. These issues are not mutually exclusive, but Congress must have the courage to make these tough decisions.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and my very dear friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek), for bringing this resolution forward. People can say what they want about this country. This is the greatest country in the world. Men like Reverend Jesse Jackson, as well as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rod Blagojevich), who have the courage to risk their lives, and the other delegation, and to go on foreign soil to free three heroes are to be commended. I want to add my voice to all those who have spoken before me in thanking Reverend Jackson and our colleague and their delegation. This world will be a better place. We hope we can end this war and bring peace to our Nation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) for yielding me this time on this very special day as we honor one of America's greatest heroes, she-roes, I might add, Mrs. Rosa Parks. As was mentioned, Mrs. Parks lives in my district in Michigan. She came to my district as she left Alabama and for all of these years has been a hero of courage and inspiration for all of us, near and afar. I am here today to add my voice to those who have said, let us award Mrs. Parks a medal that is long overdue, the highest honor that this body can offer, the Congressional Gold Medal. I am here further to ask for something again. Mrs. Parks in 1987 established the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute in Michigan. She cared for and assisted hundreds of children across America to learn about civil rights, to learn about their history. We are asking in this budget year, fiscal year 2000, in the Labor-HHS budget for $3 million for the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute for Self-Development so she can continue inspiring and motivating children. I hope this body will accept and adopt the appropriation. It is just a small amount of what has already been put in through her courage, through her work and through the funds that we have collected over the last 10 years. Let us support the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute for Self-Development so that our children can know, as we have lived through this 20th Century, that as we move forward, let us take the spirit of Raymond and Rosa Parks with us and fund the institute adequately.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong and stringent opposition to H.R. 472, the so called Local Census Quality Check Act. The bill is more properly titled the Local Census Quality Destruction Act. This bill which Republicans argue allows local governments to participate in the results of the Census is a deceptive trick by the Republican Majority intended to delay the Census results solely--let me repeat--solely for political gain. The enactment of this legislation could add up to 9 weeks to a complex process that must be completed in the short span of a year. H.R. 472, will extend the completion of the Census so that there will not be enough time to make statistical corrections. Local government participation is extremely important, however, the Bureau has already recognized this fact. The 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) already gives local governments an important and expanded role in enumerating their populations by assisting the Census Bureau to accurately verify local addresses prior to the mailing of census questionnaires. In fact, twice as many local governments have taken advantage of this aspect of the 2000 census as compared to the Post Local Census Review of the 1990 Census. Today you will hear the majority argue extensively that modern scientific methods are unconstitutional, or that modern statistical methods are inaccurate or wasteful. Do not be fooled. Most Republicans who oppose this bill could care less about the accuracy of the Census. They take comfort in knowing that the Census will be conducted in a manner similar to the way it has always been conducted because it serves their political ends. In 1990, the traditional head count missed 8.4 million Americans--4.4 million Americans were counted twice for a net undercount of 4.0 million people--52 percent of this undercount, 52 percent were children. In my home state of Michigan, almost 1 percent of all minorities were undercounted. Most of those not counted were the poor and underserved. In 1990, the undercount averaged 1.6 percent of the population. The under count of minorities was far worse--4.4 percent of African-Americans were not counted; 5.0 percent of the Hispanic community was not counted and 4.5 percent of our nation's Native Americans were not counted. Republcans in Congress who oppose this measure do so for very specific reasons. It is rumored that the Republican leadership believes that they could lose between 12 to 24 seats in the House of Representatives if modern scientific methods are allowed. In light of this possibility they have amassed an all out offensive to redirect or derail the use of modern statistical methods in the Decennial Census. In addition to bills like this one here today, keep your eyes peeled for the massive media campaign that the leadership is planning to use to obstruct the benefits of modern statistical methods. If I still have not convinced you of the misguided intent behind this bill, let me point you to the opinions of others. Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, the Director of the Census Bureau, who was appointed by the Republican Bush administration, supports the use of modern scientific methods. He has also stated that the enactment of H.R. 472 is neither timely, effective, nor cost efficient. The American Statistical Association, the Population Association of America, the National Academy of Sciences, the Cities of Los Angeles, Houston and my home city, the city of Detroit all support the use of modern scientific methods for the census. There are even a few Republican members here in the Congress who recognize the importance of using modern scientific methods to enumerate our population. There is too much riding on the accuracy of the Census. The accuracy of the count is fundamental to the very concept of a government for, of and by the people envisioned by our Constitution's Framers. More than $100 million in federal grants is distributed based upon census numbers. This money goes to state and local governments for the programs that benefit roads, schools, job training, medicaid, and other important social services. It is only right that all Americans be accounted for in our Decennial census process. Delaying the Census, as H.R. 472 does will only ensure that this is not the case.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, first, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), sitting in for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), I thank her so much for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) as well as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), our ranking member, and the entire committee for bringing to us such an important bill. As has been mentioned, whether in Bangladesh, India, Africa, or some other country of the world, including the United States, microcredit, the assistance to small businesses, primarily women I might add, is the difference between success and failure in so many children's lives. As has been said earlier, the World Bank reports that 1.2 billion people in the world exist on less than $1 a day. That is 20 percent of the world's population exist on less than $1 per day. This microenterprise legislation provides for the children of these families hope for the future. It provides a way where their parents, in many cases women, can have their own businesses, can earn their own fees and dollars and then send their children to school to receive an adequate education. I commend the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and all of those who brought this bill to the floor. I recently returned from overseas and had another first-hand look at some very successful microenterprise operations. They are in fact working. They are the difference between success and failure, not only in the woman's life, who in many cases is the breadwinner, is the nurturer of the family, is the person that instills strength and self- confidence in children, that one can be what one wants to be. It has been reported that microenterprise, also the loans are repaid at a much higher rate than traditional lending practices; that, not only are the businesses successful, but the payback in large measure has been paid back. So, Mr. Chairman, let us move H.R. 1143 out of this Chamber and to the signature of the President. It is the difference between success and failure. Microenterprising is a tool not only used in this country but in the poorest of the poor countries of the world to say that this is a wonderful world. When we work together, we can save many children's lives and offer them hope for the future.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to business in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I regret that I was unable to vote on April 12, 1999. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 135, ``aye'' on H.R. 98, ``aye'' on H.R. 911, and ``aye'' on the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on H. Con. Res. 68.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to offer prayers and hope for our situation that we face today in Kosova. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the democratic alternative budget, a budget that extends Social Security until the year 2050 and saves Medicare, which will run out of money in 2008 unless we do save it. I am happy that the Democrats are proposing 77 percent for Social Security and to save Medicare to the year 2020. We also fully fund the President's education request. The other budget resolution does not. We offer money for child care. The other budget resolution does not. Mr. Speaker, we offer $1.9 billion for our veterans and their families. Let us support the democratic budget alternative that saves Social Security and Medicare, helps our veterans, helps our children as we move to the 21st Century.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as one of the newest Members of Congress who has been recently appointed to the august House Appropriations Committee, and one of the fewer than ten African Americans who have ever been appointed to this committee in the entire history of the United States, I take my duties very, very seriously. As such, I take the responsibility of guarding the purse of the American people very seriously. While we currently enjoy a soaring stock market and unforeseen surplus in our budget, common sense economics dictate that good times do not last forever. It is, therefore, couched against this background that I oppose the Emergency Supplemental Bill, H.R. 1411, that is before us today. Of course, I join my colleagues in support of assisting the people in those countries tragically hit by Hurricanes Mitch and George. As we enter increasingly globalized markets, taking measures to brace their economies is strategically wise. Assistance is also the humane response. This assistance must not come at the cost of delaying much needed aid to the farmers of our nation or by threatening our national security. Wise fiscal policy and a humanitarian response to those in need are not mutually exclusive. First of all, H.R. 1411 hurts the farmers of our nation. The State of Michigan is the third largest exporter of agricultural products in the United States. Instead of moving rapidly to address the real needs and concerns of the farmers in the State of Michigan and our country, the Majority Leadership chose to delay for over three weeks millions in farm operating loans. These loans help farmers hurt by low world-wide commodity prices. This delay was unnecessary and is almost unforgivable. It does not take an economic genius to determine the effect that this isolationism will have on the commodity prices that these farmers, and other businesses, that are engaged in the world-wide marketplace. These rescissions will hurt commodity prices even more, and could further hurt the farmers and their families of Michigan and our nation. Secondly, this bill erodes our commitment to the global economy by rescinding several key guarantees to international lending institutions. Furthermore, this bill potentially threatens the security of the United States by rescinding $150 million from the U.S. program that aids in the disarming of Russian nuclear weapons. This program buys and stores enriched uranium and plutonium from the production of various nuclear weapons. While this program is still in its nascent phases, this bill signals to Russia that we are not serious about solving the every burgeoning threat of nuclear weapons. Nor, it would seem, are we serious about eradicating this environmentally-dangerous material. The regrettable aspect about this legislation is that it does many good things. The committee's report contains language that was of particular importance to me concerning the possible disproportionate impact that these natural disasters could wreak on women living in communities hit by the storm. Fully one-third of the households in Central America that lost homes are headed by women, and women are primarily responsible for taking care of the family health, finding emergency services for their families, and procuring adequate food and clean water. When attempting to return to normalcy, unfortunately, jobs that women traditionally tend to depend on have been hard-hit. For example, many of the agricultural jobs that women are at the end of the processing chain, such as packing fruits for export. These end-of-chain jobs will not be replaced for another 3-5 years; until new crops are ready for harvest. Frustratingly, women are most often barred from the kinds of short-term employment, such as construction, clean-up, and road building, that the disaster has created. Women must remain a focus as we provide disaster relief for these countries. I commend the emergency supplemental package's partial focus on microcredit programs, which are targeted primarily at women. And I urge those coordinating disaster relief programs to remain aware of the continued plight of women as they help to rebuild society, and to institute processes to ensure that women are able to participate in needs assessments. Programs must ensure that women workers are gaining equal access to employment and credit. Gender differences and women's specific needs must be taken into account in the emergency relief and development programs. The committee's report addresses this concern. My second concern lies in the possible resulting long-term increase in debt that may be felt by these countries. I stand in strong support of the $16 million debt reduction provided for Honduras and Nicaragua. Neither country should be expected to use their scarce resources for debt payments while immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs remain unmet. In addition to this $16 million in debt reduction, we are providing $25 million in debt relief to the Central American Emergency Trust Fund to help with scheduled debt payment to international financial institutions. I am concerned about the provision of temporary cash flow relief that is provided in such a way that there is an endgame increase in debt due to capitalization of interest. I believe we ought to do the most that we can to ease and reduce Honduras' and Nicaragua's debt burden and, to the best of our abilities, avoid increasing the amount of money Honduras and Nicaragua will owe in the end. I am tired of playing games. I believe that the majority of my colleagues want to ensure that we deliver help when it is needed, and that Congress begin to address the real needs and concerns of our country. Although H.R. 1411 contains provisions that I fought for during House Appropriations Committee consideration, I cannot support legislation that hurts our farmers, erodes our commitment to the stability of world markets, or potentially threatens our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill in its current form.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in staunch opposition to H.R. 800, the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.'' As a former teacher, forever parent of two children who graduated from the State of Michigan's public schools, and current grandmother of four beautiful boys, I am personally and professionally invested toward excellent public schools for all Americans. Like most of my colleagues, I support flexibility in the administration of Federal education programs. I do not support flexibility in the administration of these programs, if this flexibility results in inadequate accountability of taxpayer's dollars or an erosion of our fiscal commitment to our Nation's poorest students and school districts. H.R. 800, in its current form, provides inadequate accountability to ensure that there is accurate, valid and reliable reporting. It would also allow States to abandon the mission of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is to serve our poorest schools and children first. This waste of taxpayer dollars and the abandonment of our poorest children is something that I, and most thinking Americans, should not tolerate. I oppose this bill for the following reasons: While H.R. 800 is being touted as a bipartisan education initiative, this bill lacks protections for how Title I funds are allocated within school districts. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was originally written in 1965, it was clear that the performance of students at high poverty schools was relatively low. Regrettably, this is still true. That is why title I was created, to help improve the gap between low and high income students. As evidenced by a recent assessment of the title I program, that gap still exists and students in high poverty schools continue to be in need of targeted assistance. This bill removes that targeted aid. This bill does not target funding for the poorest school districts or the poorest students. School wide programs under ESEA allow the use of title I funds to be used for services to schools with a 50% or higher poverty rate. In the past, these programs in ESEA have been used to institute reform initiatives and reduce the pupil to teacher ratio at high poverty schools. Under H.R. 800, Ed-Flex states are given the authority to allow all schools to participate in school wide programs under Title I regardless of their low-income child percentages. Giving school districts the authority to use title I funds for school wide programs at any school regardless of the number children who are low- income dilutes the purpose of the title I. This legislation does not monitor how its funds are being used to improve education. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am directed to ensure and guard over the purse of the American people. If we, as elected officials, are going to make a financial investment of $50 billion or more in Federal education funds over the next several years for the programs included in this bill, it should not be too much to ask two simple requirements. One is that there is a viable plan in place to serve the students who are the intended beneficiaries of the programs. The second would be that States and school districts show progress in meeting their goals. This bill provides neither. The citizens of our Nation want and deserve a decent education for all of our children. We need 100,000 more qualified instructors in our schools. We need to repair, refurbish, or build our aging elementary schools. We need to provide before and after-school programs to help our students toward the next millennium. I urge the defeat of H.R. 800 in its current form.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, on January 3rd, 1997, I stood in this Chamber, this wonderful House of Representatives, and took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution from both foreign and domestic aggression, I am happy to say to the Members as I stand before them, entering my second term, as I did in the Michigan legislature for 18 years of upholding the Constitution. This act that we are doing today is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear. This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It bothers me that some of my colleagues on the other aisle have said we are using a marketing tool by asking for censure. Most of the American people want the President censured. Most of the American people, nearly 70 percent, do not want him impeached. Why, then, do we, who represent the people of these United States, come before the House with four articles of impeachment? I think it is a travesty. It is the wrong day. We have troops, young men and women under 25 years of age, risking their lives on foreign soil today for us to uphold justice for all of us. It is the wrong day that we are before the House with these articles of impeachment. It is the wrong way. We are not even allowed to vote, to debate the issue of censureship. Is this a democracy, or are we moving towards a totalitarian country, where our rights are taken away from us? This is a very serious moment in our history. Let us not be trivialized, or trivialize the process. A marketing tool? I do not think so. Censureship is what we want the opportunity to debate, censureship is what we want the opportunity to vote on. Unfortunately, the Republican majority will not let us have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote no. Vote no on this ridiculous, insane affront to our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong, adamant and stern objection to the articles of impeachment of our President, William Jefferson Clinton. This recommendation to overrule not one, but two democratic elections and remove the President from office for alleged ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is one of the two most grave votes that a member of Congress must cast. As other Members of Congress have erroneously stated, this is not a symbolic gesture, an expression of moral sentiments, or a ``free vote'' with no consequences. This is the first of a two-part process that removes the President from office. The House should unequivocally vote no on these resolutions, and end, once and for all, what has been a sordid, tawdry issue. The American people deserve better than to have a Congress consumed with the personal, not public, behavior of our President. I oppose the impeachment of our President for the following two reasons. The Allegations of the Independent Counsel Do Not Rise to the Level of Impeachable Offenses First of all, many experts agree that the allegations made by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. After spending close to $50 million over four years, Judge Starr found the President innocent of any wrongdoing in the Whitewater investment debacle; innocent of any wrongdoing in the so-called ``Filegate'' fiasco; and innocent of any wrong doing in the unfortunate suicide of former White House aide Vincent Foster. All of these allegations were reasons the special counsel was originally deposed. There has been no demonstration that the alleged wrongdoing by the President approaches the magnitude of ``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' as stated in our Constitution. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution intended that such ``other high crimes and misdemeanors'' must be in the nature of large scale abuses of public office such as treason and bribery. The President's admitted wrongdoing in his inappropriate relationship with a former White House intern simply does not measure up to this standard. Historical precedent regarding impeachment clearly illustrates that for offenses to be impeachable, they must arise out of a President's public, not private, conduct. Former President Andrew Johnson was impeached for his public duty regarding the termination of a member of his cabinet, not for his private conduct of previously owning slaves. The President Gave Misleading Statements, but they were not Perjurious. While I am not an attorney, I have reviewed the record as provided by the Independent Counsel and the House Judiciary Committee. From what I understand, in order to prove perjury, it must be proven that the President made a false statement about a fact that was ``material'' to an issue that is under question. In the House of Representatives, we call this ``germaneness.'' This means, for example, that I cannot bring up an agricultural issue when the bill in question or on the floor is a banking bill. If I make false statements about what is in the agriculture bill, that has nothing to do with what is in the banking bill. Just like the agriculture false statements are not germane to the banking bill, the alleged false statements about Ms. Lewinsky are not germane to the Jones inquiry. Honestly and integrity are important, and vital, character traits of all public servants. The President has repeatedly admitted to this affair and to misleading the American public about it. The President has apologized to God, his family, and the American people for his misbehavior. Like my colleagues in the House and Members of the Armed Services, I have sworn to protect our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am in a fight to preserve what all Americans hold dear: the precepts and principles of the Constitution of the United States. I am not out to save President William Jefferson Clinton; I am out to save the Presidency of the United States. Two of the most important things a Member of Congress can do are vote for war or overturn the will of the poeple by impeaching a President. The vote that is expected to take place on this is no window-dressing, glorified version of a censure. A vote on impeachment is not the end, it is the beginning. If this resolution passes, there will automatically be a Senate trial, which could lasts for months, paralzying Congress and our nation. While the Republican leadership and majority in Congress were consumed by this issue, we did not finish the work of ensuring that people who need health care have it; that we have enough elementary schools to educate our children for the next millennium; that Social Security will be around to protect our nation's senior citizens; that health maintenance organizations protect patients, not profits. We need to be about the people's business, and the people have said that while they want the President to be punished, they do not want Congress to usurp their choice of leader. Some of my colleagues have compared President Clinton's behavior with President Richard M. Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not Watergate. This is not a case of the President directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency in a cover-up. This is not a case of the President lying about the diversion of Iranian arms-sales proceeds to the contras. This is simply about a President who made a mistake in his personal life and who tried to save his family and himself from personal embarrassment. That is all. Again, in taking into consideration the weight of the President's actions, I am mindful that twenty-three months ago, members of the 105th Congress took our collective oaths of office. In that oath, we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. As such, it is not our option but our obligation to the American people to deliberate the issues and information that is presented before us in hearings, Committee mark-ups, or during floor debate, and weigh them in an unbiased and clear fashion before voting the issue of the day. The Republican leadership did not allow this non-partisan, unbiased analysis of the evidence before the Members of the House Judiciary Committee and now, the entire House of Representatives. Let me make clear that I do not condone the President's personal conduct. I must add, however, that it would be sheer folly not fo afford the leader of this great nation the same Constitutional protections afforded every other member of our society. Our constitution demands that we in Congress provide a fair and non- partisan venue for the consideration of impeachment. It was my sincere hope that we would have proceeded in the spirit of fairness so that we can focus Congressional attention to issues like education, Social Security and health care, issues which truly impact the daily lives of the American people. In the final analysis, we in Congress have let the American people down with these articles of impeachment. I am adamently against impeachment. Impeachment is not mere punishment for Presidents who have behaved badly, behavior to which President Clinton has already admitted and apologized. Impeachment is a mechanism to protect our Republic against rogue Presidents who threaten our nation. For me, and for many Americans, the question is this: is our President a threat to our nation? The evidence gathered by the independent counsel, and the President's scintillating public record of achievement, overwhelmingly says no. Based on the merits of the case presented to the House Judiciary Committee and before the United States House of Representatives, I cannot vote in support of on any of these articles for impeachment before me today. I only pray that the wisdom of our God prevails upon us during this trying time of judgment. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails in rejecting these unnecessary and overreaching articles of impeachment against our President, William Jefferson Clinton.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one of the most grave decisions that a Member of Congress must make is the decision to go to war. Fewer than 24 hours ago, President William Jefferson Clinton launched missiles in response to continued intransigence by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Over the past two months, President Clinton has judiciously and skillfully negotiated a truce with President Hussein, and even aborted a launched air strike against military targets in Iraq. As President Clinton clearly stated, that November 15, 1998 cease-fire was the last effort in the continued work to have Iraq comply with the terms that ended the Gulf War over seven and one-half years ago. As a person of peace and prayer, I have grave reservations any time force or violence is used to solve any problem, conflict or difference. It is unfortunate that we have not yet progressed to the point where violence is not an element of international problem-solving. Each and every life on earth is too precious to be wasted as a result of the collateral damage that inevitably happens as the result of war. The use of force should be used only as a last resort when all other options have been thoroughly examined and exhausted. Along with 434 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and 100 of my colleagues in the Senate, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This recent action is in the defense of the best interests of the United States. President William Jefferson Clinton, acting upon the advice of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ordered the most recent air strike. There have been some Members of Congress who have questioned the timing and necessity of this air strike. Now is not the time for Members of Congress to question this joint and unanimous decision of the military leaders of our Nation, all of whom support this needed action. Now is the time to offer our prayers, our aid, and our support to men and women of our Armed Forces, their families and our President. I have long expressed my support for the ending of humanitarian sanctions on Iraq, and along with over 40 of my colleagues, sent a bipartisan letter to the President asking for a revisiting of the economic sanctions against Iraq. While leveled at the Iraqi regime, these sanctions have had the unintended effect of taking a deadly toll on the innocent civilians of Iraq. History is proof that it is in the United States' best long-term interests to shape a policy that embraces humanitarian concerns and allows new ways to address the legitimate security concerns of the United States. Maintaining humanitarian principles and having a tough stance on Iraq are not mutually exclusive. On June 26 of this year, we celebrated the 50th year of the Berlin Airlift. After the Soviet Union banned all travel to and from East Germany shortly after the end of World War II, aircraft from U.S. Air Forces in Europe delivered 156 tons of supplies during 64 sorties. During the Berlin Airlift, almost 18 million tons of coal, food, medicine, heavy machinery, newsprint, construction equipment, vehicles, and household goods were flown in to the people, not the government, of East Germany. The Berlin Airlift saved the lives of thousands of people yearning for freedom and justice from the shackles of oppression. The strong, aggressive stance that the United States took against the regime of the Soviet Union complemented its compassion for the people of East Germany. Fifty years later, we live in the wake of the Berlin Airlift. Through the skill and courage of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, President Clinton, and concerned citizens, were able to previously step back from the brink of war. This is, unfortunately, no longer the case. There are certainly many challenges against lasting peace and stability in Iraq, and it is vital that Iraq fully and completely comply with the inspection teams authorized by the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq. The monitoring and dismantling of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction must take place. In our letter to President Clinton, we urged the separation of humanitarian sanction from military sanctions. We also asked for improving the oversight and mechanisms for the oil-for-food trade, and the expeditious reform of the federal regulations impeding the flow of humanitarian goods to the people of Iraq. Like East Berlin before the airlift, we have heard several official and unofficial reports of the horrible starvation of children, medical deprivation of senior citizens, and general devastation faced by ordinary, everyday citizens in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the President of the United States was forced to use missiles in order to get Iraq to comply with reasonable U.N. requirements. Along with Secretary General Kofi Annan, I am deeply saddened and personally hurt that Saddam Hussein did not give peace a chance. Any coordinated policy regarding Iraq should not further punish the women, children, and senior citizens already wincing beneath the thumb of a dictator. In the long run, Saddam Hussein, like any other dictator, will fade away. It is important and vital that the United States forge a humanitarian pact with the people of Iraq and revisit the effect of our economic sanctions and this recent missile strike on Iraq. Fifty years ago, the people of East Germany hailed the collective wisdom and humanitarian courage of America. Fifty years from now, the Iraqi people, and all citizens of the Middle East, will praise the continued fight for freedom, justice and liberty of the American people. I support our troops. I support the families of our troops. Along with my constituents, I pray that during this month of the most holy of holidays for so many citizens, the collective peace and love that we all so desperately need envelop our troops, their families, and the people of Iraq. Rest assured that children, women, and senior citizens will die. Rest assured that some of our troops, who are someone's father or mother, brother or sister, niece or nephew, will never return home. Military action of this, or any, scope requires deep prayer, temperance, and patriotism of our country's leaders. Along with the citizens of the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I hope that my colleagues in Congress will join me in prayer for our country, our troops, the Persian Gulf region, and the Iraqi people, who deserve a better leader than Saddam Hussein.