Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 100 days now into the 105th Congress, I am puzzled and baffled that we have not yet begun to take care of the business of the people. Quality education, good-paying jobs, a clean environment, medical care for the people of this great country, all have not yet been addressed. I want to give you an example of what can happen when a legislature works together in a bipartisan way. In 1993, President Clinton initiated and passed the Empowerment Zone Act. Since that time, there have been established 15 empowerment zones across America and 25 enterprise communities where jobs are created, where people are trained, where the displaced worker is put back to work. I contend that this 105th Congress must get back on track. One hundred days and still no real issues, no real opportunity for children, for people. We have got to get back on track. I am happy to report that Detroit, the city that I represent, among six other cities, was the No. 1 application put in and won that rightful first place empowerment zone designation. We have 2 billion dollar's worth of private investment; we have over 100,000 jobs committed and we are in the process of rejuvenating that. I am happy to report that beginning next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the White House will sponsor and hold in Detroit the first annual meeting of the empowerment zones and the enterprising communities. This will be the first time that the enterprising communities and the empowerment zones will come together to see what is working, how many they have employed, how many they have retrained, what has happened in terms of assistance to schools and education. I am happy that Detroit is being selected, I am happy that President Clinton had the foresight to establish the empowerment zones, and what I want to see this 105th Congress do is to expand that opportunity. Let us put Americans back to work. Let us provide educational opportunities for our children. Let us have pensions and security for seniors who have worked so hard for this country. We are now almost 100 days into the 105th Congress. How long will it be before we get back to work? I am asking our Republican leadership, let us deal with the issues of America. Let us put Americans back to work. Let us provide security for our children so that they too can have wonderful, exciting lives that we have all been blessed by. One hundred days. Is it not time that this Congress, the 105th Congress under Republican leadership deal with the real issues? Enterprise zones, working Americans, sending children to school, providing health care, securing pensions, that is what the American people want to talk about. I would hope that we begin the work of the people of this great Nation, that as we move to a new millennium we talk about those real issues, and let us get to work, Congress. We are 435 of the most powerful people in the world. People sent us to this Congress to do their work. Let us get started on it.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I accepted my responsibility with great enthusiasm as our leader appointed me to this committee. Now that I have sat in those committee meetings for the last two or three times now, I am wondering why I am there. I come from a legislative body in Michigan, of serving 18 years there. I understand power in politics and when you are in charge and have the majority, you rule. What I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is how we cannot allow those of us who have been elected by the people who sent us here to be involved in the process. It is amazing to me, and I served on the Committee on the Budget in that House for 14 years, and I understand budgets. The committees of this House deserve adequate budgets. I would be the first to say that. But I am troubled by a committee that would need $15 million over and above, or should I say $7.9 million over and above their committee allocation, with no parameters, where they investigate just the President, not the entire Congress. I am in favor of the investigation, but I want it for the President, for the Congress, for Democrats and Republicans. I think the American people deserve that. The last election said the American people want campaign finance reform. I do not think they said they want $15 million in a slush fund, as someone said earlier. For 15 million Americans, that would be $1 an American; for 30 million Americans, they would pay 50 cents an American, to go after the President. Let us investigate the entire Congress, Republicans and Democrats. I take my assignment on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight very seriously. I want us to get down to the business of the people, which is good jobs, a clean environment, health care, Medicaid, and pensions. That is what the American citizens want, and that is what I hope this Congress will get to.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the final passage of legislation in this form. As a life-long pro- choice elected official, I would normally reject this legislation as a matter of principle. However, my opposition to this legislation is also based on several specific reasons that, if implemented by this legislation, would have a chilling effect upon the lives and safety of women and for the respect of precedents established by the Supreme Court. This legislation is constitutionally unsound. This legislation directly opposes the precedents established in the Supreme Court under Roe versus Wade, in that it bans a particular procedure during the pre- viability stage of pregnancy. This legislation handcuffs health care options for physicians. While I am not a medical doctor, a lot of the procedures that doctors perform--gynecological examinations, emergency tracheotomies, setting broken bones--are not pretty and can seem downright gruesome. However, sometimes, procedures that are needed to absolutely, positively save someone's life is necessary. For example, I am sure that many of us recall the person who had to have her leg amputated while trapped in the rubble of the Oklahoma City bomb blast. This operation was the only way that this person's life would have been spared. If we ban this procedure, what will be next? Congress has no business telling a well-trained and intelligent physician what is or is not acceptable medical procedures. This legislation does not allow an exception for the utilization of this procedure to spare the life or the health of the mother. Physicians often have to make life or death decisions. While it is my hope that this procedure is performed during those infinitesimal instances in which it is absolutely necessary, we should not eliminate the possibility that it might be needed to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Like you, we have all heard the different statistics on how often this procedure is used. But statistics do not mean a thing if that is your mother, your wife, your sister, or your daughter on the gurney and the choice is this procedure or the death of your loved one. The decision to have or not have a child is a very difficult one. This is a decision that should remain among a woman, a man, and a doctor--not the Federal Government. It is my hope and desire that as individuals of the family of humanity, we will do all that we can to proactively provide the education and support to our Nation's women so that abortion is a choice that fewer and fewer women have to make. The doctors of our Nation deserve to be able to fully implement their Hippocratic oath--``I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment''--without governmental intervention. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's doctors, the lives and health of women, and the Supreme Court, and ask for a ``nay'' vote on final passage of this legislation.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the closed rule that is before us this afternoon, and amazingly because it does not talk about abortion, it does not stop one abortion, but stops a procedure that trained professionals have been trained to make those decisions. It takes that right away from them. As a new person in Congress and having served 18 years in the Michigan House of Representatives, I am appalled that such a rule would come before this Congress where we would not be allowed to debate the issue, where we would not be allowed to actually set forth our opinions and then come to a final vote. The proposed rule that is before us this afternoon is not fair, it is not right, and it does not allow those who have been elected by our constituencies across America to represent our views and to speak for them. I urge my colleagues, vote against this closed proposed rule.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, as most Americans know, March is the month for women. It is Women's History Month in the United States. I first want to commend the five women in Aberdeen last week who came forward and recanted their stories that they had been raped by their drill sergeants. I think that was an outstanding tribute to women, and I think their courage for coming forth and telling the truth must be congratulated. Today the Senate started their hearings for a fine African-American woman, Alexis Herman, to become the next Secretary of our Labor Department. We are almost in the second quarter of 1997. Nearly 3 months have passed and we do not have yet the President's nominee for the Department of Labor. I commend the Senate for beginning the hearings for Ms. Alexis Herman. Ms. Herman, like me, is an African-American woman. Ms. Herman is a lover of education and is well documented and degreed like myself. Ms. Herman is a civil rights activist for men and women, black and white in this country, and her record speaks for itself. With all that said, that is not why I believe Alexis Herman ought to be confirmed. She is qualified. She is dedicated, and she will provide for this U.S. Labor Department what we need, which is a strong fighter for jobs, one who will make opportunities available for our young people, one who will give her best to see that our Labor Department reaches its goal of full employment in America. I strongly support Ms. Herman. Her record of advancing programs for young people, for going that extra mile to develop creative, innovative work experiences for young and old, black and white, is to be commended. Alexis Herman will make a fine Labor Secretary. Her hard work up to this time has proven that she is one who will take risks. She will speak out. She will look out for our young people and take care of our labor movement. I urge my colleagues, all of us, to work together, to speak out, to see that this most important department in our government, the Labor Department, confirms this fine woman. What better tribute could we give to women in this country than to confirm Alexis Herman as our new Secretary of Labor?

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, soon President Clinton will announce his juvenile justice package for the United States of America. I stand here today asking that that package include education reform. Education is the centerpiece of the President's commitment for this Congress. I am happy that he is allowing and going to increase the Pell grant; wanting to increase the Pell grant to 218,000 more young people. People who are educated function better in American society, more opportunities are available to them. Any education package, any juvenile justice reform must include educational opportunities, must include opportunities in co-op work experiences, must include a business education partnership where we might give tax credits to those businesses who hire young people. If we are going to have effective juvenile justice reform, we have to have education as the centerpiece of that. I pledge to work closely with the President to see that that happens.

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time and allowing me this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to join the chorus of many of my colleagues who stand opposed to this amendment. As has been said before I arose today, by many Members who came before this forum and to this microphone, term limits denigrate people, the people of this country. We give the people the ability to make those decisions, and as has been seen by several Congresses, and here recently in the last 2 or 3 years, the people do have the wisdom and the intelligence to make the correct choices in their elected Representatives. I want to point out what might not have been said today, and that is that the legislative body of the three branches of Government is the avenue that the people have. They cannot get in on the executive, be it through the President or their Governor and the President, in this instance, and his department heads; through the judiciary they have less of an opportunity to participate in the Government. It is through the legislative body, to the House and the U.S. Senate, that the people can elect or not elect the Representatives of their choice and thereby let their voices be heard. So I think we do a horrible disadvantage and denigrate the responsibility and intelligence of the people of this country when we place a term limit for their elected officials. Additionally, I think it does not reward the many Members who have served this institution, who have the institutional knowledge, and are able from that institutional knowledge and hard work to prepare, in a bipartisan way, the best public policy that our children need. I believe the November 5 election states more profoundly than anything we have heard that the people want this Congress to govern. They want us to talk about a ``families first agenda'' in a bipartisan way. They want us to talk about good jobs. They want us to talk about opportunity for their children, security for our seniors. I believe if this amendment is defeated it would be in the best interest of this country. I believe that we allow the people to determine who their Representatives are, and that they ask us to bring those issues that are most important to them. I contend, again, that those are jobs, they are education; it is environmental quality; it is opportunity for our children, security for our seniors. As a first-termer, I am a little disheartened that we have not gone to those issues; that this is the first issue before the Congress. And I understand that the Speaker did make that promise and that it is here before us. But I think people want adequate education. I think children want opportunity. I think it is good jobs this 105th Congress must concern ourselves with. This amendment that would limit the terms of the Members of the Congress, the Members of this Congress, is not a good one, and I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle put aside this redundant policy. We have heard it over and over again, and we did have a vote in the 104th Congress and it was defeated. I suspect today as we vote later on it will not receive the two-thirds majority as required by the Constitution. We have serious work in this 105th Congress, and I hope that we would get about it in a bipartisan way. Therefore, I raise my voice and my vote with others who have spoken before me today to defeat this amendment and let us get to work in the 105th Congress.