Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, because I unavoidably detained in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, I was not present to vote on H.R. 3811, H.R. 2829, H. Res. 422, and H. Res. 423. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for all of these rollcall votes.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of a bi- partisan amendment offered by my colleagues, Congressmen Tim Roemer and Frank Riggs. This amendment would eliminate a provision in H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act of 1998, that would require colleges to report four years in advance the possible elimination of athletics programs. This onerous provision would, in effect, gut the purpose of equality in athletics for men and women. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails in adopting this amendment. As the team leader for the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues-- Title IX task force, I am often asked whether the Women's Caucus has a position on the elimination of sports opportunities for men as a method of complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Over the past five years, no less than 55 institutions nationwide have eliminated or downgraded to club status men's varsity intercollegiate sports or placed squad size limits on men's teams. Most schools cite, as the reason for their decision, the need to reduce expenditures in order to provide opportunities for women. The Women's Caucus is not in favor of reducing opportunities for men as the preferred method of achieving Title IX compliance. Title IX is one section of the Education Amendments of 1972. Though it is commonly associated with college athletic programs, it is, in fact, a wide- ranging sex discrimination law that also applies to high schools and elementary schools. It states: ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the participation in an educational activity.'' The reporting requirement in H.R. 6 was included by opponents to Title IX who want to force colleges to blame reductions in smaller, non-revenue men's sports on Title IX. They are hoping that colleges will say in their reports that compliance with Title IX is the reason they have to reduce men's sports, which is not true. Since the passage of Title IX, in 1972, for every one new dollar spent on women's intercollegiate sports, two new dollars were spent on men's intercollegiate sports. From 1992-1997, men's athletic operating budgets have increased by 139%. The increase in expenditures for women's sports during this time period, 89% pales in comparison. Football and men's basketball consume 73% of the total men's athletic operating budget at Division 1-A institutions, leaving other men's sports to compete for remaining funds. Of the $1.37 million average increase in expenditures for men's Division 1-A sports programs during the past five years, sixty-three percent of this increase went to football. Blaming women's sports for reductions in non-revenue sports is pitting the have-nots against the have-nots. The lion's share or resources goes to male athletes, which are inequitably distributed among men's sports. Title IX should not be used as a scapegoat for decisions made by institutions because of fiscal difficulties, or because of decisions to inequitably distribute funds among men's sports. Instead of developing an acrimonious environment between men's non- revenue sports and women's sports, we as legislators should be looking for solutions that will allow opportunities for all students to participate in activities. We need to explore the options of moving college athletic programs to a lower level of competitive division and using tuition waiver savings to athletics budgets to fund gender equity. Equality has always benefited all Americans. If we intended to compete on a global level academically and athletically, we need a strong Title IX. I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, as a former public school teacher, concerned citizen, parent and Member of Congress, I am fully aware of the value of a quality education. One of the first speeches that I made on the floor of the House emphasized the importance of education in preventing crime and providing a skilled and capable work force. Therefore, it troubles me deeply to discover that there is a real, enthusiastic, and empirical effort to denigrate and erode the federal commitment to the public schools of our nation via school vouchers. I am emphatically opposed to school vouchers based on the fact that vouchers do not work, only benefit those students who receive vouchers, and is often taxpayer support of private or religious institutions. Initial results from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the showcase city for the voucher program, has been marginal, at best. In these fiscally conservative times, taxpayers deserve to get the most for their tax dollars as possible. Marginal programs will not suffice. Also, these voucher schools, more often than not, do not accept children with physical challenges or remedial needs, and get to pick and choose among the best and the brightest to attend their institutions. Our public schools accept all children, regardless of previous educational success or failure, financial standing, or physical ability. I am also distressed by the fact that the D.C. voucher bill provides a select group of students (2,000) with vouchers, while leaving the other 76,000 students in under-funded public schools. No one would argue that there is no room for improvement in D.C. public schools. However, the implementation of vouchers constitutes the abandonment of D.C. schools and abandonment is not the answer. Congress needs to be encouraging efforts all across the city to make schools safer, improve teaching, raise educational standards and provide more teachers in D.C. classrooms. Finally, I am leery of this legislation's potential to encroach upon our First Amendment freedoms. Our Constitution was forged based on the clear principle providing for the separation of church and state. This legislation, which would allow the use taxpayer funds to support private and religious institutions, is clearly the entanglement of federal funds in religious matters. Excellence in education begins with our public schools. School vouchers would take vitally-needed funds from our public schools to private and parochial institutions. Of course, our public schools need reform. The price of reform should not be borne on the backs of our poor children and families, who cannot afford the high price of vouchers. We need to get serious about reforming and supporting public schools, not abandoning them in favor of a plan that does not work-- school vouchers.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3717, legislation that would permanently ban federal funding for needle exchange programs. Needle exchange programs reduce new human immunodisease virus (HIV) and Hepatitis B infection among intravenous drug users, do not lead to more drug use, are cost effective and are supported by a wide array of scientific and medical experts and organizations. In the light of President Clinton's opposition to the funding of needle exchange programs, it makes absolutely no sense to adopt this legislation. Before I continue, let me add that I vehemently oppose the use of illegal drugs. Democrats, Republicans and Independents need to remember who, and what, is the real enemy here. The real enemy is our collective inertia, inaction, and inability to practically do anything that will reduce illegal drug use. Drug abuse is not a Democratic, Republican or Independent problem--it is an American problem. All Americans concerned about the deterioration of the future of our country--our children-- should unite to protect our children, break the cycle of illegal drugs and crime, provide treatment for drug abuse, strengthen our laws on money laundering, and reduce the supply of drugs to our cities, suburbs, and rural areas. According to a recent Detroit Free Press article, about 33,000 heroin users live in the city of Detroit. I recently had the honor of meeting Mr. Harry Simpson, Executive Director of Life Points. Life Points is a non-profit organization dedicated to the reduction and eradication of illegal drug use among the citizens of the City of Detroit. On December 1, 1997, the city's first licensed needle-exchange program began. Mr. Simpson realizes that we need a two-pronged attack against the abuse of drugs: prevention and treatment. In a recent Associated Press article, Mr. Simpson said, ``We're not sitting on the porch handing out syringes to everyone who passes. It isn't about distributing needles, promoting drug use or promoting illegal behavior. I just don't think people need to die just because they use drugs.'' I am opposed to this legislation for four reasons: Needle exchange programs reduce the risk of HIV and Hepatitis B infection. The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine's report titled, ``Needle Exchange Programs Reduce HIV Transmission Among People Who Inject Illegal Drugs,'' makes this point abundantly clear. In this report, panel chair Lincoln E. Moses, professor of statistics emeritus at Standford University, said, ``The activities of needle exchange and bleach distribution programs go beyond just providing sterile injection equipment and bottles of bleach. These programs often result in more referrals to drug abuse treatment. Although not all communities may choose to implement them, needle exchange and bleach distribution programs can be important parts of comprehensive approaches to reduce drug use and the spread of AIDS. Needle sharing is a primary route of HIV transmission among people who inject illegal drugs.'' Needle exchange programs do not lead to increased drug use. The National Institutes of health, one of the preeminent health research facilities in the nation, published the Consensus Development Statement on Interventions to Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors. This report concluded that needle exchange programs ``show a reduction in risk behaviors as high as 80% in injecting drug users, with estimates of a 30% or greater reduction of HIV.'' The report also concluded that the majority of evidence shows either a decrease in injection drug use among participants or no changes in their current levels of drug use. Needle exchange programs are cost effective. According to the National Association of Persons with AIDS, needle exchange programs could prevent HIV infection among drug users, their sexual partners, and their children at a cost of about $9,400 per prevented infection. This pales in the cost of more than $100,000 per lifetime of treating a person with AIDS. Needle exchange programs are supported by many non-partisan, respected, scientific organizations and boards of review. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the American Medical Association support needle exchange programs. My vehement opposition to illegal drugs has not clouded my desire to protect women or children. It is my desire that the wisdom of Congress prevails in defeating this legislation, and that Congress collectively take measures that will eliminate the use of illegal drugs in our country.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly speak out against H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. This bill will do injustice and harm to the effort to resolve the problems facing the Social Security system. The odd adage ``if it aint broke, don't fix it'' applies to this bill. Our bipartisan task force is working hard toward resolving the problems of the historic ``third rail'' of American politics. We do not need another task force to undermine the hard work and difficult decisions that need to be made. As a member of the Social Security task force, I must commend the collegial bipartisan manner in which the task force has conducted its business and I take this moment to recognize Congressmen Roy Blunt, R- Mo. and Bill Delahunt, D-Ma. for their leadership. I am, however, mystified at Republican efforts to implement this legislation. In my opinion, H.R. 3546 duplicates the current bipartisan process instituted to resolve the problems facing Social Security. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and the energy and effort of members of Congress. Social Security, created by a Democratic President, and used by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents has kept millions of seniors out of poverty. For a majority of minorities who are elderly, Social Security is their major source of income. While I applaud my colleagues efforts to begin another discussion to save Social Security, the fact that the members of the ``Dialogue Council'' and ``Panel'' will be chosen by the majority leadership is surprising. Such a nonpartisan issue should not be drawn into the maelstrom of politics. I find it more than a coincidence that this bill sounds a lot like the current national discussion about the future of Social Security which the President began in Kansas City. The mandates of this legislation directly compete with the process currently underway. I maintain that this legislation, put forth by the republican leadership, is simply an effort to confuse an issue vital to the well being of the nation. Unfortunately, this legislation reeks of an election year attempt by the Republicans to appear concerned about an issue that the people have mandated important. I am further concerned that because the bill appoints a Council and Panel so clearly skewed to favor the majority, it will not foster the bipartisan debate needed and desired by most in the House. This bill will allow the Republican leadership in the House and Senate to stack the Dialogue Council and Panel with members who clearly support the privatization of the Social Security system. As a member of the Social Security Task Force, I am objectively analyzing the pros and cons of privatizing social security. Any conclusion on this issue must be made after Congress and the nation has had the opportunity to examine all options as to what is clearly demonstrated to be in the best interest of the American people. The actions we take today on Social Security will affect our parents and the lives of our children. The actions we take today will affect the course of America in the coming decades. It is my charge, as a member of the Task Force, to make the tough decisions and recommendations to preserve this vital program. I only hope the American people see this bill for what it is, and recognize that this is an election year attempt to appear to address this critical issue.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues and concerned citizens of an important event taking place in the 15th Congressional District of Michigan. On Friday, April 24, 1998, I will join the Constituency for Africa, Africa World Expo Inc. and the Detroit Minority Business Opportunity Committee in hosting ``A New Agenda for Africa: Augmenting Business Opportunities with Africa,'' a conference designed to help build successful trading partnerships between small and medium-sized American businesses and Africa. The conference, to be held in Detroit, Michigan, follows two monumental events in the history of this country's relationship with Africa: this body's passage of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and President Clinton's groundbreaking visit to six African nations. On March 11, 1998, Congress voted 233 to 186 to support the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This bill sets forth a much-needed new U.S. economic and trade policy toward the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, encourages closer economic cooperation with this region, and supports debt reduction for the poorest African countries. This legislation was developed on a bi-partisan basis with the 48 Presidents and ambassadors of the sub-Saharan African nations themselves. Last December, I had the honor and privilege of participating in a Presidential mission on economic cooperation to six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This bill complements, rather than supplants, continued, effective aid to Africa. Aid to Africa has been cut by 25 percent; the passage of this bill is but beginning toward establishing economic self-determination and self- sufficiency for sub-Saharan Africa. The conference will feature a number of experts on African trade issues, and will spotlight American business operators who have successful ventures in sub-Saharan Africa. Conference participants will hear first-hand accounts of the trade environment in sub-Saharan Africa from Mamadou Seck, Senegalese Ambassador to the United States; Koby Koomson, Ghanaian Ambassador to the United States; Mr. Banji Milambo, an economist with the Republic of Zambia; The Honorable Ackim Nkole, Deputy Minister of the Republic of Zambia, Dr. Ng'andu Bwalya, Director General of the Zambia Investment Center and Mr. Gerry Munyama, commercial officer for Namibia. It is my honor and privilege that these ambassadors and experts have taken the time to educate all Americans about trade and business opportunities in Africa. I warmly welcome these and all of the participants for this important conference and encourage American business owners to consider Africa as they enter our increasingly-global economy. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to enter these remarks in the Congressional Record.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act. This bill would overturn the February 25, 1998 decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank and Trust, a decision that would have severely restricted the ability of credit unions to grow and expand. In essence, the Supreme Court said that the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) illegally allowed credit unions to expand beyond their original base of membership. His legislation allows credit union members who were added under NCUA's policy to remain with their credit union, and expounds upon the definition of ``common bond.'' This bill is a victory for poor people, for low-income families, for working-class people, and for consumers. I would also like to add that I am greatly pleased that the collective wisdom of the Congress prevailed in deleting this legislation from the larger, sweeping omnibus financial services reauthorization bill yesterday. We can all say, in a truly bi-partisan manner, that we are finally getting to the work that truly matters to American taxpayers throughout our great nation. Of course, I support the banks in the 15th Congressional District and in our nation. I also support our credit unions, and I have been a member of a credit union for a long, long time. Banks and credit unions have operated side-by-side since the first credit union was founded in Manchester, New Hampshire in 1909. In our nation, we have over 12,000 credit unions serving over 70 million people. Close to 300,000 members of credit unions reside in my Congressional District. Credit unions are nonprofit, cooperative financial institutions owned and run by its members. These democratically controlled organizations provide their members with a safe place to save and borrow at reasonable rates. In order to become a member of a credit union, you must be eligible for membership. This legislation will allow each individual credit union to continue to decide whom it will serve. A recent article in The Washington Post compared recent fees among several areas banks and one credit union. In practically every instance, the credit union's fee, rates or borrowing terms were more favorable to those of banks. In this era of bank consolidation and fewer bank branch offices, community development credit unions fill a special void. These credit unions primarily serve low-income members in distressed and financially underserved areas, and help fill the financial needs and dreams of poor and working-class people and families. Again, I want to applaud the hard work of Chairman Jim Leach and my leader, Ranking Minority Member John LaFalce, for their dedication and effort in getting this bill to the floor under a fair and truly bi- partisan manner. This legislation illustrates what Congress can do if Members have the opportunity to work in a truly fair, just and bi- partisan manner. As we move toward the next millennium and a global economy, banks and credit unions will have no choice but to work together to ensure the fiscal health of all of our constituents, businesses, and corporations, and I look forward to working with credit unions and banks to that very goal. Thank you for your time.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to come today in strong support of H.R. 1151. One of the top largest banks is in my district. I support banks. But I also support credit unions and the 300,000 members in my district who are members of the credit union. I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and our ranking members. This is the way true legislation should pass and work in this Congress, in a bipartisan way, for the betterment of our American citizens. And this bill just does that. It is important that as we discuss this bill and as we vote affirmatively for it, that, remember, we are in a large financial market. The world is global. Credit unions account for 2 percent of the financial market, and banks and other securities take care of the rest of it. It is a good bill. H.R. 1151, as was mentioned, is pro-consumer, pro-competition, and I strongly support it.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the Congress yesterday missed a great opportunity to reform the finance campaigning that we do in our country. I am happy to report that on a vote of 337 to 74 this House turned down some atrocious campaign finance reform legislation that was a total sham, and we did it in a bipartisan way. Americans have said we want campaign finance reform, we want to take the money out, we want to participate in the process, and we want an open debate on it. I applaud my colleagues. Democrats have been strong in it. All 196 of us said ``no'' to the sham campaign finance reform legislation that was on the House floor last night, and I am happy that 74 of Republicans stood up to that challenge as well. Let us reform the laws. Let Americans participate in campaign finance reform. I commend my Democratic Caucus, Mr. Gephardt for his leadership. Let us continue the fight.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on House Oversight, of which I am a member, reported out a bill called campaign finance reform. What a sham. The bill, among other things, increases the limits that an individual could give a party from $20,000 to $60,000. Now, who does that benefit? I put an amendment in at that time, and will again on the floor if the Committee on Rules allows, to strike section 1, which would ban labor unions and nonprofits from educating their people, their members, on what Federal legislation and otherwise they need to know about before they vote. How is that campaign finance reform, campaign finance reform that the people want to take all the money out, $600 million raised last year, soft money and hard money from the Republican Party, $60 million from Democrats, Republicans and Democrats. Too much money. American voters want to participate and they do not want to have to have $75,000 to do so.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Democrats in the House joined President Clinton in announcing expansion of health coverage for Americans 55 to 65 years old. We, the Democratic Caucus, also introduced legislation that would say that these 55- to 65-year-old Americans who have in many cases been displaced and laid out and without health insurance may be able to buy into Medicare and in that sense have insurance for themselves and their families. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this is a prudent targeted proposal that will not at all put Medicare at risk and will not be costly or increase cost to the Medicare program. Americans age 55 to 65 need the coverage. Many have been displaced. Health care is essential for our families to be stable and for our children to be healthy. I am proud of our Democratic Caucus. We look forward to moving this legislation through the Congress and put at rest many fears that seniors who have worked for this country, have toiled for this country, and now need the support.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership and for this opportunity to speak. I think today is a great day for our country as well as for the hundreds of millions of people who live on the continent of Africa, the largest continent in the world; the richest continent in the world, with its minerals, its gold, its silver, its ivory. I think this is a good opportunity, and I commend the Committee on Ways and Means and all those who have worked on this bill over these years to begin the partnerships that Africa wants, that our country needs, to stimulate both growth and development here in this country and on the continent of Africa. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not. But as we worked through the process, it is very much a beginning, a beginning where our American businesses can partner with African businesses to employ hundreds of thousands of people, to increase tax revenues on this side of the Atlantic, as well as improve our schools and offer more revenues for our national treasury. I participated in the most recent presidential mission to Africa last December. It was a fine mission. We visited six different African countries. It was my fifth visit to Africa. All six of those prime ministers, heads of state that we met with want this bill. All of the ambassador corps who work with us in Washington want this bill. They know it is not perfect. But what it will do is begin to allow American businesses and African countries to partner in such a way that we stimulate employment on the continent and revenue-generating, enterprising government, American businesses growth on this side of the Atlantic. I commend the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their leadership. We have a long way to go. This is a first step to that. I believe that as we move to the 21st century, the wellness of Africa and the wellness of America are inextricably tied together. This legislation begins to operate what I see and what I view as a real win for both countries.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, if you support self sufficiency for Africa, you must support the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Once you separate fact from fiction, the African Growth and Opportunity Act deserves your support by removing many of the hurdles impeding free- market reform. Myth: The African Growth and Opportunity Act Does Not Have Labor Protections Fact: The bill requires the President, as a condition for eligibility for benefits, to determine that African countries do not engage in gross violations of internationally-recognized human right, including core labor standards. Also, African nations must observe existing statutory criteria on internationally-recognized worker rights as a condition for duty-free benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Myth: The African Growth and Opportunity Act Does Not Help African Self-Sufficiency Fact: The bill was developed with the full input of African governments and represents a shift from dependence on foreign assistance to a private sector, market oriented incentive approach. Myth: The African Growth and Opportunity Act Hurts U.S. Textile Imports Fact: U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from Africa accounts for less than one percent of total U.S. imports of textiles and apparel. The impact on the U.S. textile industry would be negligible. We have a unique opportunity, and a window of opportunity, for self- determination--kujichagulia--for the countries of sub-saharan Africa. According to the Congressional Research Service: Most of U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa is with only a few countries. In 1997, three-quarters of U.S. exports to the region went to five countries: South Africa (49% of U.S. exports to the region), Nigeria (13%), Ghana (5%), Angola (5%), and Kenya (4%). The other 43 countries accounted for the remaining one-quarter of U.S. exports to the region. In 1997, 84% of U.S. imports from the region came from four countries: Nigeria (37% of U.S. imports from the region), Angola (17%), South Africa( 15%) and Gabon (13%). The other 44 countries accounted for only 16% of U.S. imports from the region. (CRS Issue Brief for Congress, Number 98015, March 5, 1998, page 3.) We need to expand trade and development with the continent that is the cradle of civilization--Africa. In combination with continued effective aid, this bill will expand trade beyond these four nations. This legislation is but a start in the right direction toward encouraging private investment and development in sub-saharan Africa. I have attached an editorial article in the Washington Post in support of this bill on final passage, and encourage the support of all of my colleagues on this great opportunity and fantastic initiative toward empowerment for Africa. I thank the Speaker and my colleagues for this time. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 7, 1998] How To Help Africa The House is scheduled to vote next week on an African trade bill. In the past, that would have been an oxymoron. The United States traded with Asia and Europe but sent aid to sub-Saharan Africa. This new approach, which treats African nations more as partners than as charities, is welcome-- though not sufficient. Many of the world's poorest people inhabit Africa, their economies in danger of being left behind altogether as trade and investment unite the rest of the world. But in recent years, the true picture has not been quite as gloomy as news reports on civil wars and coups d'etat might suggest. Many African countries have moved toward democracy and free-market reforms. Many are trying to spend more on basic health and primary education. Many want to help themselves and not depend forever on foreign aid. This bill is aimed at those nations. It was put together by Republican Rep. Philip Crane and Democrats Charles Rangel, Jim McDermott and William Jefferson, and embraced by the Clinton administration. It would seek to encourage trade between Africa and the United States by removing quotas and many tariffs from the kinds of products these poor nations could most plausibly export: textiles, clothing, footwear. It would stimulate and insure private U.S. investment in Africa, and create forums for African and American businessmen to cooperate. The legislation carries a tiny price tag, but some in the House and Senate oppose it for protectionist reasons. Yet African textiles now account for only two-thirds of one percent of total U.S. textile imports and are unlikely to rise above 2 percent even in the most optimistic (by African lights) scenarios. Africa's industry is not a threat to the U.S. economy. A more serious objection--though not a disqualifying one-- is that this bill will accomplish less than some rhetoric suggests. For countries as poor as those in sub-Saharan Africa, where average annual per capita income hovers below $500, trade and investment alone can't do the job. Aid remains essential, as the bill's authors acknowledge, and yet U.S. assistance to Africa declined by 25 percent during the past two years. This trade bill can help, but only in combination with effective aid and substantial debt relief.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I regret that I was unable to vote after 3:00 pm yesterday. If I had been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call Number 28; Yea on Roll Call Number 29, Yea on Roll Call Number 30; Present on Roll Call Number 31; Nay on Roll Call Number 32; Nay on Roll Call Number 33; Nay on Roll Call Number 34; Nay on Roll Call Number 35; Yea on Roll Call Number 36; and Yea on Roll Call Number 37, final passage of the U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Also, I would have voted ``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, and ``Yea'' on final passage of H.R. 2369, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in staunch and vehement opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. This bill would repress the participation of legal, U.S. citizens in the process of both registering to vote and participation in elections. Furthermore, it would erode the hard-earned gains of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation on final passage. This bill, which was not considered in either the House Judiciary Committee nor the House Oversight Committee for a markup, is being pushed onto the floor under the ``suspension of the rules'' calendar. This method does not allow Members of Congress, in support or opposition to this bill, to offer amendments or engage in more than 40 minutes of debate. H.r. 1428 would require American citizens, whom the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration could not confirm to be citizens, to be selectively removed from registration lists. As a Member of the House Oversight Committee, I have first-hand knowledge of how flawed, by the INS's own admission, the INS database is. According to researchers of the INS database during the contested election of California's 46th Congressional District, William Thomas was listed as a possible person who might not be eligible to vote in the 46th Congressional District in California. The INS database does not contain data on any native-born citizens. Even naturalized citizens--citizens who pay taxes, work legally, and are probably going to fight and possibly die, in another war against Iraq--are not included in this INS database. What is worse is that the database for the Social Security Administration is equally flawed. Before 1978, the Social Security Administration did not collect information on citizenship or country of origin. Therefore, citizens--including the vast majority of the membership of Congress--who received a Social Security card before 1978 probably would not be able to register or vote under H.R. 1428. This bill would also make Social Security numbers part of the public record. As many Members of Congress know, two employees of the Legislative Resource Center were fired by Chairman William Thomas because of their alleged mis-handling of the Social Security numbers of employees of the House of Representatives. If it is wrong for Congress to make the Social Security numbers of its employees public, it is wrong for states and municipalities to do the same. This legislation does nothing to ensure that naturalized citizens or U.S. born citizens will not be discriminated against. As an African American, I cannot recount the number of times that I felt the sting of discrimination or prejudice because I did not fit someone's mind-set of what an ``American'' looked like. It is one thing if a blue-eyed, white male is trying to register or vote. It is another thing for a dark- skinned, Latina female with an accent to try to register or vote. This bill hearkens back to the days before the adoption of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in which there were grandfather clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests and outright intimidation by ``poll watchers'' to determine just who could or could not either register or vote. It saddens me to know that, after a generation, some of the same issues of equality and fairness that one of my constituents, civil rights titan Rosa Parks, stood for are being eroded today. It saddens me to know that, after a generation, some of the same issues of freedom and enfranchisement, a citizen of the City of Detroit, civil rights martyr Viola Liuzzo, died for are being threatened today. It saddens me to know that, as a current Member of Congress, I receive the notice of threats against my life to fight for justice. Let the record reflect that I am not placing my meager work on the same standard as these two courageous and brave persons. What I am saying is that it is regrettable that we, as a nation, have obviously learned so little from the struggle fought, lives lost, and freedom gained from 33 years worth of challenge and controversy. It is my hope that the wisdom of truth, justice and fairness will prevail today on the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill must be stopped. In the spirit of Rosa Parks, in the memory of Viola Liuzzo, let us stop the erosion of access of freedom and justice. Let us maintain the integrity and validity of our elections. Let us encourage all citizens to register and vote. Vote against H.R. 1428 on final passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished leader of the task force as we did our work. We appreciate his standing in and for all the work that he put into this committee and into the final report. Mr. Speaker, we discussed this issue now for 13 months and $2 million of the taxpayers' money. I am happy that we finally came to a concluding approval that the case should be dismissed. We said that over and over again on this side of the aisle for the last 13 months. And we believe then, as we believe now, that there was no case against the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), as has been documented by the Orange County grand jury, citizens in that district, as has been documented now by the Republican secretary of state. Mr. Speaker, there has been much time spent on this issue. Ms. Sanchez and some of our Members have been threatened. I myself received a threat on last Monday that my brains would be blown out because of my stance on this very important issue. What is at stake here is, Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act: Should American citizens, and we mean citizens of America, be allowed to participate in the voting process that this country has. I believe that we should. The 1965 civil rights law and the 1964 Voting Rights Act said that we ought to allow American citizens to participate. Was there fraud in this election? The Orange County grand jury said no. The Republican secretary of state said no. And more than that, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) won with over 900 votes, a solid victory. It is unfortunate that we had to spend this time. I want to remind my colleagues that in 1964, when Rosa Parks, who was my constituent, by the way, refused to give up her seat, she did so because she believed that America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, she believed that civil rights ought to be afforded all American citizens and that those same citizens ought to be allowed the privilege to vote. I fully support the registration of all citizens. I think that any impairment or any attack on the Voting Rights Act is despicable and we must fight against it. I believe that as we move to the new millennium in this country that we take all American citizens with us. Those that are disenfranchised, we ought to bring them also into the American dream. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this Congress for the first year and now in my second year, I am delighted to have served on the House Oversight in this hearing process. It certainly has grown me up and taught me that as we work for the American citizens we can speak out and speak up, that when we do right by the people who elected us, we have a better America for all of its citizens. I am convinced that the Voting Rights Act is a very real part of that. I will fight vehemently any proposals that would weaken that Voting Rights Act for all American citizens. I rise in support of the wisdom of Congress in dismissing the challenge by former Congressman Robert K. Dornan and ending, once and for all, the election that was certified by the people of the 46th Congressional District of California and by California's Republican Secretary of State. Although I voted for the legislation as a member of the House Oversight Committee, I voted for it with some trepidation and concern. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Task Force for their hard work and diligence, especially the gentleman from the State of Maryland, Steny Hoyer. Congressman Hoyer's tireless efforts toward justice for the people of the 46th Congressional District, none of whom, I might add, will be able to vote for him in the fall, speaks to the highest aspirations and goals of public service. I am proud and privileged to serve with Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Sam Gejdensen, my Democratic colleagues on the House Oversight Committee. The legacy of the protection of voting rights for minorities in the United States was a hard-fought battle that saw its culmination in the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite entreaties to the contrary, there has been no demonstration from the Majority that any changes to our current registration laws--proof or documentation of citizenship to register to vote, or to allow states to require Social Security numbers on voting registration applications--are needed or necessary to ensure the accuracy and validity of our nation's elections. A grand jury in California, and the Republican Secretary of State, concluded that no fraud occurred in this election of a Democratic member of Congress. After 13 months and $2 million in taxpayer's dollars in wasted funds, we have concluded 748 people may have--I emphasize, may have--voted improperly. Of this total, 124 of these ``suspect'' voters were elderly and disabled people who submitted absentee ballots. In California, ten million people voted. This resulted in one contested election, and of that, 748 votes may have been improperly cast. While this is not perfect, a 99.99 percentage for voting accuracy is certainly a pretty good electoral record. We all want open, honest and fair elections and registration processes. What should not happen, as a result of this decision by the House Oversight Committee, is the further disenfranchisement of voters by even more restrictive registration requirements. As we all know, this would only be the beginning of the recurrence of poll watchers, literacy tests, and poll taxes--other relics of a bygone era that died with the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These, and other further and unwarranted voting rights restrictions, hinder the progress and freedom of not just minorities, but of all Americans. Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), an organization founded by the late Martin Luther King, Jr. As we all know, it was the courage, bravery and dedication of a current resident of my Congressional District, Rosa Parks, whose single-minded refusal to negotiate her principles, led in no short measure to the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Thirty-three years later, I am afraid that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of that hard fought battle. I am also concerned about this legislation's precedence for tort law. While I am not an attorney, it was my belief that one of the principles in law is that the loser pays. It befuddles and confuses me as to why the legal bills of the loser, former Representative Robert K. Dornan, are being reimbursed along with those of the winner, Representative Loretta Sanchez. It is unfortunate that Congressman Hoyer's attempt to eliminate this patently unfair provision was not approved by the Committee. I fully support the full and unfettered access to registration and voting for all U.S. citizens. I will continue to fight against any further erosion of the Voting Rights Act, and encourage my colleagues in Congress to do the same. Access to voting denied to a single senior citizen casting an absentee ballot, to a newly-naturalized citizen, or someone who has voted in the last several elections, based on a peremptory analysis of one's race, creed or ethnicity, is access to voting denied to us all.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, Democrats in the House and Senate are joining the President and the Vice President to talk about our agenda for America. That American agenda includes education, reducing class size, hiring 100,000 new teachers, health care, making sure that people in America can choose their doctor, can receive the quality care that they deserve; also securing Social Security, making sure that it is secure into the new millennium, making sure that we modernize it and to expand it so that 55- and 56-year-olds who have been excluded from their jobs, who have been laid off, can buy into a medical program for themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to serve the American citizenry. We are happy today that the Senate and House Democrats are joining the President and Vice President in announcing to America that we will work for them, but we will work in securing and making quality education for all our children. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the American citizenry.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my strong support for the 12th Annual National Girls and Women in Sports Day. I have long been an ardent supporter of women athletes who use grace, strength, and discipline to break down barriers. Sports instill confidence in girls and women and equip them with important life skills such as teamwork, goal-setting, the pursuit of excellence in performance, and other achievement-oriented behaviors. National Girls and Women in Sports Day was established in 1987 in memory of the late Flo Hyman, the Olympic volleyball champion who died suddenly in 1986. Participants in this year's celebration include Tajama Abraham, Sacramento Monarchs center; Lillian Greene-Chamberlain, PhD, national track and field champion; Nancy Hogshead, three-time Olympic swimming gold medalist, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Olympic track and field champion; Nadia Comaneci, Olympic gymnastics champion; Robin Campbell, track and field Olympian; Dominique Dawes, Olympic gymnastic gold medalist; Camille Duvall-Hero, world champion water-skier; Kelly Dyer, world-champion ice hockey player; Wendy Hilliard, national rhythmic gymnastics champion; Rusty Kanokogi, highest ranking woman in judo; Nikki McCray, 1996 Olympic gold medalist and member of the newly formed WNBA Washington Mystics; Aimee Mullins, national track and field champion; Donna Richardson, fitness star, national aerobic champion; Chanda Rubin, tennis champion; Lyn St. James, champion auto racer. At a luncheon today in the Senate Hart Building, Nadia Comaneci was given the Women's Sports Foundation's 1998 Flo Hyman Award. Every year on National Girls and Women in Sports Day, the award is given to women who exemplify the dignity, spirit, and commitment to excellence of Ms. Hyman, captain of the 1984 U.S. Olympic volleyball team. Ms. Comaneci is the most celebrated gymnast in the history of the sport. She was the star of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, where she won three gold medals, two silver medals, and a bronze, and became the first woman ever to score a perfect 10. I congratulate Ms. Comaneci for her awe-inspiring achievements, and I applaud the Women's Sports Foundation for its recognition of the importance of sports for women and girls.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us today, H.R. 2625, a bill that would rename Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan National Airport. This legislation usurps local authority, betrays the legacy of President Reagan, and would be an unfunded mandate to the hundreds of businesses located in Arlington, VA. As a former State Representative for the State of Michigan and a current Member of Congress, I respect the position and office of the President. I also sympathize with the struggle that former President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, have shown with former President Reagan's challenge with Alzheimer's Disease. President Reagan and his family have my personal prayers and hope in battling this debilitating and destructive disease. I want to make it unequivocally clear that my opposition to this legislation is regarding its impact upon our tax payers, not because of any ill will toward the former President or his family. I oppose this bill for many of the same reasons delineated in the committee report that accompanies H.R. 2625: I. Renaming Washington National Airport would be against the wishes of the locality in which it is located, and is directly opposite the emphasis upon local control that was the fulcrum of President Reagan's philosophy. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), the Member of Congress in whose district National Airport resides, Arlington County, VA, the City of Arlington, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, the former Chairman of the Washington Airport Authority and the first Republican elected to statewide office in Virginia since the Reconstruction, opposes this legislation. II. Renaming Washington National Airport would be against Federal precedents. Congress has never changed the name of a facility which already has a name. This policy has been followed by Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, the Department of Commerce building was not renamed when the late Secretary Ronald H. Brown died in the line of duty to his country. If this bill is adopted, all of our national monuments: the Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, and numerous other buildings and edifices--might be renamed as well. To rename a building or edifice that has already been designated is a disgrace to the former honoree and the current honoree. III. Renaming Washington National Airport is particularly puzzling because of his aviation policies. It is particularly ironic that an airport would be selected to be named after former President Reagan, as it was President Reagan who fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers after they want on strike in 1981, and then went on to prevent them from reapplying for their jobs far beyond any reasonable period of punishment. This overt union-busting tactic did little to improve the safety or security of our Nation's airways, and destroyed the financial well-being and livelihood of thousands of families across the Nation. IV. Renaming Washington National Airport is not necessary to honor former President Reagan. President Reagan has been honored with the $800 million International Trade Center in Washington, DC, the largest Federal building other than the Pentagon; by a Federal court house in California; and the newest Nimitz-class carrier in the Navy's fleet. It should be noted that construction on George Washington's monument did not begin until 49 years after his death; President Lincoln was not honored with a memorial until 44 years after his assassination, and the Jefferson and Roosevelt memorials were not complete until 134 and 52 years after their respective deaths. President Reagan has already been honored. President Reagan will continue to be honored--but, he should be honored in a manner that is appropriate with his legacy of less Federal intervention in local affairs and no unfunded mandates on municipalities. The cost of this legislation could perhaps be better used to improve Michigan's roads and bridges, provide safer and affordable home health care to our seniors, or provide more before- and after-school programs for our youth. While I sincerely respect the position of the Presidency, I must oppose this legislation and will vote against it on final passage.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. As I sat here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and listened to my colleagues talk about Mr. Ronald Dellums, there really was not much I could add that has not already been said, but I thought I better come anyway, Ron. Over 20 years ago I was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives and it was during that time 20 years ago that I started watching Ron Dellums from this well. Your integrity, your strength, your confidence, that you showed Americans around the world, when we are public servants and believe that this is the land of the free and the brave, that we can do anything and, inspired by God, that we are, and we must, represent. So as I sat here today and listened to my colleagues talk about you and your strength and your dignity, what comes to mind, as I finally got here 20 years later to actually serve with you, I am honored to have had the opportunity. You really do not know how many people around this country know and feel that when you are on this floor and take this mike, we know it is going to be all right. I want you to know that as you leave here this week, this Congressperson, as well as many of us in this Congress, as well as State legislatures, know that you are our role model, that in spite of the many difficulties that many of us feel and witness on a day-to-bay basis as elected officials that we truly can rise above the fray. Since I have been here you told me one day that your will, in addition to speaking out and representing, is so that men, particularly African- American men, can know that we have the strength and the integrity to build America, to offer hope for our families and our communities. So as you leave here this week, my brother, your spirit lives in this House of Representatives, and as men and women who serve in this body, if we can have the strength and the determination that Mr. Ron Dellums has shown by his actions, the world will be a better place. Your family is waiting for you and I know you will serve them well. As elected officials, we sometimes shorten our families. So you have to be there when you have to be there, but we are going to miss you. I want you to know from the bottom of my heart as I serve in this Congress and as I served in the State legislature, your spirit, your integrity, and your strength has certainly made me a better woman. God bless you, my brother.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today we mark the first day of the second year of our 105th Congress. I stand here today to support the President and our Democratic Caucus and legislature as we continue our program of investing in American citizens, increasing and investing in education. I hope we will hear tonight that the President is soundly behind legislation and dollars that will make all American schools modern and bring them up to the 21st century: Smaller class sizes, as well as investing in our inner cities, expanding community investment banks in the inner cities, expanding affordable housing, expanding and protecting the environment. We have been a strong caucus here in the Democratic Caucus in this 105th Congress. I have pledged to work with my colleagues tirelessly to protect Social Security, to protect quality education, and to make certain that the children of America are educated and ready for the 21st century.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the language in the conference report accompanying H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, that allows for the different and disparate treatment of Haitians. Last year, the Immigration Reform Act would retroactively allow for the wrongful deportation of hundreds of Central Americans--Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans--and Haitians. Mr. Speaker, guess who, in the final analysis, was left out of the legislation? Haitians. That's right, Haitians. This is patently unfair, and although I am not a member of the House International Relations Committee, I will do all that I can to ensure that this situation is rectified when Congress reconvenes for the second session of the 105th Congress. Like many of my colleagues, I listened with rapt attention during the debate late last night on the District of Columbia conference report. the citizens of the District of Columbia--hard-working, taxpaying citizens--have a hard-working, but non-voting representative in the House of Representatives. Because of this fact, the District of Columbia appropriations bill is historically laden with riders that are totally unrelated to anything regarding how the District of Columbia should spend its annual Federal appropriation. One of these riders in the conference report would prevent the wrongful deportation of Central Americans but not for Haitians. While yesterday's Congressional Record delineated the agreement, that the U.S. Attorney General will temporarily suspend the deportation of Haitians while Congress deliberates legislation to provide similar relief to Haitians, this is not part of the current law. And all of us know the weight and importance of the law in the U.S. house of Representatives. It disturbs me greatly that this great Nation, under God, indivisible, is incapable of treating all persons fairly. More than 18,000 Haitians were admitted to the United States after being processed in Guantanamo Bay in 1991. Many of these persons fled a violent military dictatorship, led by General Cedras and Michel Francois. These persons were determined to have credible, bona fide claims for political asylum, and were permitted to enter our sacred shores. Now, we find out that the law has unfairly excluded these persons. I will do all I can to bring justice to the Haitian people and to the citizens of America. I demand hearings on this legislation, and the expeditious consideration and adoption of this bill when Congress reconvenes.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Congressman Martin Frost and Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, I am introducing the Police Pursuit and Rescue Support Act. This legislation is very simple: it will allow for our financially strapped police departments to utilize Department of Defense helicopters and other equipment to pursue felons or rescue citizens. High-speed police pursuits are an unfortunate consequence of the very difficult job that our local police officers must do everyday. In 1996, 377 persons nationwide were killed as a result of these high-speed pursuits, with 107 of these fatalities being occupants of other, uninvolved vehicles or innocent bystanders. Two persons in my congressional district have died as a result of these high-speed pursuits this year. Their deaths inspired me to seek a reasonable and workable solution to this challenge. Helicopters have been shown to be a more cost-effective and efficient device in high-speed pursuits. However, the high expense to purchase and maintain a helicopter is prohibitive to many local police departments. The Police Pursuit and Rescue Support Act will allow local police departments to utilize helicopters or any other equipment from the local Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard branch to pursue fleeing criminals or rescue citizens. Upon the submission to the Department of Defense of high-speed pursuit and rescue guidelines by the local police department, the Department of Defense will make helicopters and other equipment available, with a pilot and maintenance person, free of charge, to the local police department. This would be a mutually agreeable arrangement: the local police department and the local Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Navy base both must conclude that this arrangement is practical, feasible, and financially responsible. The Police Pursuit and Rescue Support Act is a voluntary program that allows local police departments to draft their high-speed pursuit and rescue guidelines, submit these to the Department of Defense, and upon approval of these guidelines, work with their local branch of the Department of Defense to establish exactly how, when, and where this emergency equipment would be used. Each local police department would have the flexibility to design and develop their own high-speed pursuit guidelines. As a former elected Michigan State legislator, I am sensitive to mandates in a one-size-fits-all fashion coming from Washington, DC, and stringently avoided any such prerequisites in the Police Pursuit and Rescue Support Act. Finally, this bill will make Department of Defense equipment available for the rescue of citizens. Many of our cities have high-rise office buildings that are inaccessible by the longest hook and ladder fire trucks. There are those accidents and catastrophes that are only accessible by the high technology, advanced vehicles available to our armed services. It only makes sense for our financially strapped police departments to have access to that equipment, already paid for by taxpayer dollars, to safely pursue criminals and rescue citizens. My bill gives local police departments the flexibility to design policies that will protect citizens, police officers, and save taxpayers untold sums in wrongful death lawsuits.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.