Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a person who has been a fixture of this institution for more than 30 years and who has been a mainstay of our Democratic Cloakroom, and indeed, our Democratic Party. I have always said that Members of Congress are only as good as the staff that helps us because they are the ones who make this Chamber run. Tim Friedman is one of those few people who works behind the scenes to make sure we do our job properly, that floor operations run smoothly and our personal staffs are kept abreast of current legislative activity and the legislative schedule. We thank Tim for making our jobs easier and for being a trusted resource for Members and our offices. Tim is from Lackawanna, NY, just outside of Buffalo. He is part of that group known as the ``Buffalo Gang,'' the leader of whom is our own former Doorkeeper of the House, Jim Molloy. In 1976, Tim came to Washington and started to work for then-Representative Dan Rostenkowski. Tim's first days on the job were not promising. His first 2 assignments were to drive the Illinois Congressman to different events in Washington, and he got lost both times. After awhile, he learned how to get around the city, and ever since, he has been steering Members on the right course. Members have taken Tim's advice on when to schedule their return home following legislative business, when to take dinner breaks during late night sessions, and basically how to plan their lives around the activity on the floor. It is with mixed feelings that I pay tribute to Tim. I am saddened by the fact we are losing his institutional knowledge, wizened guidance, and a beloved friend. At the same time, I am happy for him as he and his wife Colleen tee-off on a second career in their new home of Wallace, NC. All of us on both sides of the aisle wish Tim and Colleen well in their new adventure, and we hope that their move will exceed their best expectations. One thing for sure is the golfing weather is much better in North Carolina than here in Washington or certainly in Buffalo. This is an important feature because both Tim and Colleen are excellent and avid golfers, and their new home is surrounded by 2 golf courses. We are proud to know Tim, and we hope that he and Colleen will come back and visit their friends from time to time, particularly during the golf tournament season, to let us know how their lives are progressing. We appreciate all the services you have rendered to this institution and to the Members with whom you have worked. As you look to new horizons, I would like to send you and Colleen off with these wishes: May you always find good lies in the fairways; May your shots sail clear over still waters; and May nothing but eagles and birdies follow you for the all the rounds of your life.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with very strong and mixed feelings on H. Res, 921, This resolution condemns the recent attacks against the State of Israel. The State of Israel has two intractable enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Presently, Israel is engaged in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. I cannot over-emphasize that I am vehemently and unalterably opposed to the attacks undertaken by Hezbollah against Israel. At the same time, I cannot and will not support other language in the resolution which I consider to be harmful to the interests of peace, diplomacy, security, and the protection of civilians in Lebanon and Israel. Let me say at the outset, I support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself from attack. I cannot support the level of retaliation it is using against the civilian population that did not provoke the attack. Hezbollah is the guilty party, and their attacks were egregious, without merit, and provocative. Israel must direct its campaign against confirmed Hezbollah strongholds. Given the sophistication of current surveillance technology and intelligence- gathering, I am convinced those strongholds can be effectively eradicated, without the current and ongoing loss of life and casualties to innocent civilians. This resolution on first glance would appear to be easy to support, but on further review, it poses serious philosophical problems for me. Hezbollah provoked the attacks by capturing and killing Israeli soldiers. Indeed, in some instances, Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as shields. The resolution declares that the House affirms its support for Israel. I believe that offering unconditional support to Israel's response sends the signal that the House supports the continuing and increasing carnage that is taking place in Lebanon. I fully recognize that lives have been lost in Israel too. All of these deaths are tragic and deplorable. This resolution does not even offer counsel to Israel to aggressively pursue the course of minimizing civilian loss of life. Furthermore, the resolution recognizes Israel's commitment to minimizing civilian loss of life. To date, Israeli military operations have resulted in excess of 300 civilians killed, with an estimated one- third of them being children. I do not see Israel's actions being consistent with a commitment to minimizing the loss of life. The resolution also cites Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including conducting operations in both Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it. At the present time, Israeli military bombing operations are completely dismantling the infrastructure of Lebanon. Bridges, roads and buildings are being destroyed. Once the campaign wanes, the country will consist of rubble. I am also concerned by the language that commends the President for fully supporting Israel. The language and the message state explicitly that the House supports the way he has handled the current crisis. I strongly disagree with this premise and statement. I want to state that I am mindful that although the focus of our current attention is on the plight of the citizens affected in Israel and Lebanon, we must not forget the other component of the equation-- the situation in Gaza involving the Palestinians. In Gaza, a cordon has been set up by the Israelis, and Palestinians are suffering under unbearable conditions. My concern rests with the humanitarian plight of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon that are pawns in a struggle by terrorist organizations. Both organizations, Hamas-- Sunni--and Hezbollah--Shia--provide vital social services such as education and medical care to civilian populations, while simultaneously engaging in terrorist activities. In fact, their efforts and ideologies have created desperate political and military scenarios. In the case of Hezbollah, their efforts are contributing to instability in the region. I fully recognize the gravity of the situation that is presented by the unconscionable and provocative behavior of Hezbollah. I also have grave reservations about the level of the response by Israel to Hezbollah's actions. The competing complexities and mixed messages presented by the language in the resolution preclude me from offering my support to H. Res. 921. Therefore, I will cast a vote of ``nay'' on this resolution.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the veto override of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bipartisan legislation would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The House approved this bill last year and it won U.S. Senate approval yesterday. However, despite the measure passing both Chambers of Congress, the President has vetoed the legislation, the first of his presidency. I am disappointed the President chose this bill to be his first veto. The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations, including scientists and researchers support H.R. 810. Federal funding would enable further research to examine many new lines of stem cells-- increasing the potential for cures. Each year 8,000 to 10,000 embryos created for in-vitro fertilization are destroyed. H.R. 810 would allow federally funded research of stem cells, which scientists believe can yield cures for diseases and injuries, to be harvested from surplus frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction. Human embryonic stem cells are prized because they can replicate themselves and become almost any type of human tissue. We all know someone who can benefit from the research. Science should prevail over politics. President Bush's veto is standing in the way of hope and progress in curing many diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, some cancers, and spinal cord injuries. This veto has ignored our country's healthcare needs and has slowed the potential to eradicate life threatening and chronic diseases. The President did not make the right choice. This critical life- saving bill is greatly needed. I urge my colleagues to support the veto override and reaffirm Congress' support of life-saving medical research.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the veto override of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bipartisan legislation would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The House approved this bill last year and it won U.S. Senate approval yesterday. However, despite the measure passing both chambers of Congress, the President has vetoed the legislation, the first of his presidency. I am disappointed the President chose this bill to be his first veto. The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations, including scientists and researchers support H.R. 810. Federal funding would enable further research to examine many new lines of stem cells-- increasing the potential for cures. Each year 8,000 to 10,000 embryos created for in-vitro fertilization are destroyed. H.R. 810 would allow Federally funded research of stem cells, which scientists believe can yield cures for diseases and injuries, to be harvested from surplus frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for destruction. Human embryonic stem cells are prized because they can replicate themselves and become almost any type of human tissue. We all know someone who can benefit from the research. Science should prevail over politics. President Bush's veto is standing in the way of hope and progress in curing many diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, some cancers, and spinal cord injuries. This veto has ignored our country's healthcare needs and has slowed the potential to eradicate life threatening and chronic diseases. The President did not make the right choice. This critical life saving bill is greatly needed. I urge my colleagues to support the veto override and reaffirm Congress's support of life saving medical research.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, last week when we voted on H. Res. 895, a resolution condemning the disclosure of classified information, and more specifically, the information about our government's monitoring of international financial transactions, I voted in opposition to the measure, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position. I join my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and others in supporting an alternative resolution, H. Res. 900, which also condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, but does so in a way that is less partisan and more ingenuous. H. Res. 895 contains a number of statements that are passed off as fact but whose veracity is dubious and not substantiated through congressional inquiry. I regret that the majority saw fit to bring a resolution to the floor which deprived Democrats from providing any input into the framing of the measure. I do think that it was possible to produce a bin behind which both parties could unite, if the majority were interested in reaching a consensus. Obviously, it was not interested in forging a consensus statement, so we debated a political document instead of substantive initiative. H. Res. 895, as written, states facts, which frankly, are either in substantial dispute or subject to question. For example, did the news media inappropriately and illegally disclose information regarding the SWIFT financial monitoring program, or was this information in the public domain? There are credible people ``in the know'' who claim the information was publicly available if anyone cared to conduct a little research. According to one former State Department diplomat and U.N. monitor, the information on the SWIFT financial transaction monitoring program was incorporated in a report to the U.N. Security Council in 2002 and is available on the U.N. website. The SWIFT program has been in the public domain for quite some time. Additionally, the resolution contains a clause that the appropriate committees in Congress were notified of the program. As we heard during the debate on the bill, that is another fact in dispute by Democrats who serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence. I, therefore, voted against H. Res. 895 and announce my support for the alternative introduced by Mr. Frank, which the majority has seen fit to deny us the opportunity to consider.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, over 51 years ago this month, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. America is a better country because of the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is the most fundamental thing our American citizens have to participate fully in American democracy. The Voting Rights Act is our Nation's most crucial and critical civil rights victory. The law commemorates the lives of those who marched, died and participated that we all might be better Americans and live and vote in the democracy that we love. It is important today, as we debate the Voting Rights Act, that America pay particular attention. This law was good then, this law is good now, and it is needed for our future so that Americans might rise up and live in God's best interest. Remember, today, urge your colleagues, call your Congressperson, tell them to vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for 25 more years.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, from my great State of Michigan, for your leadership, sir, thank you very much, and to thank the Speaker and Nancy Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the floor. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 41 years ago, has made America a stronger nation. Today, I rise in support of the rule that brings it to the floor and allows us to have this debate. The preclearance portion of the amendments that we will be debating today allows the courts to go into jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination of voter irregularity, of violations. We must preserve that preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act. It is important today, it was important 41 years ago, and it allows our voting systems and all Americans to have access to clean, fair voting procedures so that the process and America's greatness can continue. So I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act itself. It must be renewed, the provisions that we will be talking about today; and I ask that all America call your congressman or congresswoman and tell them today to vote ``yes'' in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote--to participate fully and fairly in the political process--is the foundation of our democracy. For years after the Civil War, many Americans were denied this fundamental right of citizenship. Horrible acts of violence and discrimination, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, were used to deny African-American citizens the right to vote, especially in the South. During the 1960s, many brave men and women fought against bigotry and injustice to secure this most basic right for all Americans. The Voting Rights Act, VRA, the ``crown jewel'' of our civil rights statutes, was born out of their courage, struggle, and sacrifice. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. It provided protection to minority communities, and prohibited any voting practice that would abridge the right to vote on the basis of race. Any ``test or device'' for registering or voting was forbidden, thereby abolishing poll taxes and literacy tests. Although the Voting Rights Act is a permanent Federal law, it contains some temporary provisions, including the ``pre-clearance'' and the bilingual provisions. The ``pre-clearance'' provisions were enacted as temporary legislation in 1965. Sections four and five address ``pre-clearance'' and are only applicable in certain parts of the country. These provisions were originally added to help bolster the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. The VRA required State and local political jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to their voting laws to the U.S. Attorney General or to Federal judges for ``pre-clearance'' before the changes could take effect. This process ensured that the Federal Government had the ability to prevent discriminatory voting laws before they were implemented. For example, States must receive approval before changing the closing time of polling places. Congress renewed these provisions in 1970, 1975, and 1982. The process of ``pre-clearance'' provision continues to protect voters today.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I believe the measure deceptively undermines States' rights to protect their coastlines, compromises fragile coastal environments, and ultimately would cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, adding to the already record-setting national deficit. H.R. 4761 presents the illusion of granting States more control over drilling, when in actuality it makes it more cumbersome for States choosing to continue protecting their coastlines. States desiring to opt-out of drilling would be required to pass legislation every 5 years, subject to approval by their governor, and present it to the Federal Government. If State legislatures and their governors are unable to come to agreement on drilling policy within one year of this bill's enactment, they would lose their right to decide as the Federal Government would then have authority to begin granting leases within 50 to 100 miles off their coastlines. This bill attempts to bait States, already suffering fiscal restraints due to the Majority's consistent practice of cutting States funding for vital services like Medicaid/Medicare and public education, with a greater share of revenue if they are willing to sacrifice their coastal protections. It would take the second largest funding source of the Federal Government, after income taxes, and redistribute those funds only to the coastal States that will allow drilling. This comes as a sacrifice to all other States as the Interior Department has estimated the alteration of current Federal-State revenue sharing provisions on royalty payments will result in a loss of approximately $70 billion in revenues over the next 15 years; adding to the public debt burden. It is important to note that 80 percent of known oil and natural gas reserves are in areas where drilling is already permitted. The Department of the Interior has already offered leases for 267 million acres of the outer-continental shelf; however, energy companies have only taken the initiative to explore 24 million of those acres already available to them. It would be insensible to risk these coastal environments before companies have even exhausted the exploration of areas they are already permitted to drill. America's families need real relief from high-energy costs. Even if this measure had addressed this issue in the most optimal manner, offshore exploration remains an expensive, slow, and risky way of addressing the nation's energy crisis. The Federal Government should be investing resources to advance energy efficiency, conservation, and the development of alternative fuels, which can provide immediate relief to American citizens, not reinforcing our nation's gluttonous appetite for oil. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4761.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business requires me to be in the district, and I am therefore unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 10, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2563, a bill to authorize Idaho Water Studies, (Rollcall No. 358); and ``yea'' on H.R. 5061, the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act, (Rollcall No. 359).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, flight delays prevented my attendance for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 19, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 5540, the Sgt. Jacob Dan Dones Post Office Designation Act (rollcall No. 289); ``yea'' on H.R. 5504, the Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building Designation Act (rollcall No. 290); and ``yea'' on H. Res. 826, expressing the sense of Congress that a National Youth Sports Week should be established (rollcall No. 291).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 16, 2006, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 861, the resolution on the War in Iraq.

Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res 861, the global war on terrorism resolution. I am opposed to the resolution because it is terribly flawed, nonbinding, and does not provide a viable plan that protects our soldiers or serves our country. The general assumption is that the debate on the global war on terrorism, GWOT, will be a full and honest debate. In fact, the process we are engaged in represents nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric. H. Res. 861 is flawed because it does not reflect bipartisanship. Democrats were not allowed to offer our substitute or amend the Republican resolution. Further, I strenuously disagree with the language contained in the resolution. I want to strongly emphasize that the failed Republican policy in Iraq includes poor planninq that left troops without critical equipment, and provided no plan for success. The war in Iraq exemplifies gross mismanaqement, as evidenced by $9 billion that is either lost or stolen and cannot be accounted for. There has been no oversiqht of spending to date. The Republican controlled Congress has refused to oversee military conduct and the policy that contributed to the war. There has been a complete lack of accountability regarding this war. No investigating committee has ensured taxpayer dollars were legally and well spent. This administration is guilty of entering into no-bid contracts, totaling $17 billion to Halliburton alone. Let me be clear, Democrats want and demand a new direction in Iraq. We want a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops to take place immediately. We must redeploy and be ready. I disagree with the resolution premise that the U.S. will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism due to the fact that the ``terrorist adversary'' cannot be identified or quantified. The misguided perpetrators of terrorism consist of disparate and loosely confederated groups, some of whom are religious zealots that justify their terrorist actions based on their Islamic beliefs; others are mercenaries seeking to retaliate against the U.S. for our invasion of Iraq. The terrorists identified as members of AI Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden do not adhere to a traditional command and control military structure, thereby making it impossible for our military forces to engage in traditional battlefield strategies. H. Res. 861 presents the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime supported terrorists and posed a threat to global peace. There is no documentation to support this premise. These allegations have been wholly disproved, yet supporters of the war and the architects of the resolution continue to propagate these mistruths. This is why today I reaffirm my steadfast opposition to another in a long list of resolutions that seek to delude Americans into believing that we are debating legislation that provides a clear direction to winning the so- called global war on terrorism. This resolution does not. I oppose this resolution because it does not address the fact that to date we have spent in excess of $368 billion, mainly in the form of supplemental spending bills that are off-budget and contribute mightily to the Federal deficit. The resolution does not address that our President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Agency, NSA, all provided the American public with undeniably wrong information and allegations contrived to seduce them and Members of Congress to support an act of aggression against Saddam Hussein. We engaged in a war without broad international support. America, through its actions in Iraq, reinforced the perception throughout the Middle East that the global war on terrorism is an attack on the religion of Islam, and in some measure that the interests of the U.S. related more to controlling oil in Iraq than promoting democracy. This war has united our enemies and divided our friends. I reject this resolution because it does not acknowledge that we hastily entered this war and unnecessarily placed our soldiers in harm's way, resulting in 2,500 deaths. My ongoing assessments of the situation in Iraq have caused me to conclude that it is critical for the House and our nation to develop a strategy that will ensure the redeployment of our forces from Iraq and return them home. I support my colleague Represenative Murtha and his calls for a reevaluation of our military strategy and a return of our troops as soon as practicable. As our troops redeploy, they will be ready to respond to whatever challenges our Nation may be forced to confront. Finally, I oppose H. Res. 861 because it will not deliver any tangible solutions to the quagmire that engulfs our soldiers and places them in perpetual danger. H. Res. 861 provides the appearance of substantive and honest debate. In reality, it is merely an exercise designed to appease the emotional and intellectual appetite of Americans seeking to justify what they believe and have been told is a real global war on terrorism. It is not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H. Res. 861.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today is an important day in the United States Congress. Beginning around noon this afternoon, the House will debate for 10 hours the Iraq war. The question will be should we continue on the course that President Bush and the administration has set or should we have a new plan? We will have 10 hours of debate. Consider, over 2,500 young men and women killed, over 30,000 amputees, blinded and the like, hundreds of thousands who will have mental health deficiencies when they return. Retired generals have spoken. We need a new direction. The troops should be redeployed. They should be brought home at the most practical time with a plan that we don't now have under this administration. So, America, listen and look. Should we stay the course, or should we have a plan of redeployment to protect our troops and to protect America?

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Knollenberg for your leadership, sir, Michigander, appreciate working with you. And to our ranking member, Mr. Olver, thank you very much for working together. As I always say, when the chairman and ranking members work together, it certainly makes our subcommittee work better. I rise in support of our TTHUD bill, that is Transportation, Treasury, HUD, IRS and several other agencies put together in an acronym we call TTHUD, the TTHUD bill, some $67 billion bill for transit agencies, for our roads and bridges, for our housing needs, and Treasury and the like. I think the bill is a good bill for what we had to work with, but it is far short of the needs that America has to fund its highway system, to fund its transit system, also for community development. I think housing in this bill takes a major hit, and it is so unfortunate. HOPE VI, which is a program for distressed housing in mainly urban America, has been zeroed out. I think that is unfortunate. And I know you can't fund a war at over $350 billion and think we can, at the same time, invest in America. That is why I think we must bring our troops home in the most practical time, and redeploy our troops around the theater area so that America is safe, and that we protect our interests at the same time. But working with the dollars that we have, the HUD part of this bill has been devastated. The brownfield area has been zeroed out. Together, the EPA, which has money in it for remediation of land that will be developed, there is a small amount of money there. It is only there for remediation. The HOPE VI monies are for building, the actual building of houses, and together with the Community Development Block Grant money will help distressed areas and mainly urban areas of our country be able to put people in affordable housing, to have people live in safe housing, to offer their children hope for the future because a house is the most basic thing they need, one of the most basic things. This bill does not do a good job with that. And I know as we go on, you will hear more amendments trying to put back brownfield money, trying to put back HOPE VI money, and I support that. I also want to bring up in this bill the section 8 housing choice voucher program. The way that the money is distributed in that program needs to be fixed. They take a snapshot of 3 months of the expenses, rather than a 12-month snapshot of the expenses in those section 8 housing use. Thereby, States like mine, we lose millions of dollars that could be helpful in families needing housing, adequate, safe clean housing. So I would hope that as we go on, we take a look at that. And as I asked the chairman last year to take a look at our State's, not just our State's, but our choice house voucher program, where we are being penalized and losing money that we ought to have because of a flawed formula. This does not look at the 12-month expenses, but only the 3-month expenses. And I might add not the 3 months expenses that have the higher home heating costs. But overall, the TTHUD bill is one that can be supported. There will be amendments offered. Some of them are some that I will support. Housing development and providing assistance to urban America has to be strengthened. I look forward to working with the chairman and our ranking member to make sure that we can build back some of these real programs that America needs. This administration has no urban program for development, for our schools, for our health centers; and I contend as we move forward in this process, we must pay attention to adequate, safe, clean housing. This bill falls far short.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, Members and the world, this is a very important amendment, and we must pay particular attention to it. The Middle East is in turmoil. We are threatened on every side of the Middle East. Sometimes we do not respect the culture. Sometimes we do not respect the religion. Sometimes we do not respect the people for what has happened to this country and terrorism around the world. But I want for a minute for you to just take a moment and think how important this amendment would be and the signal it would send to our strongest alley in the Middle East. We have had a wonderful relationship with Egypt over the last 30 years. Over 75 million Egyptians, with some of the other countries, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, some of them 7 million, some 10 million, some 12, this is 75 million Egyptians who live in our country today and who live in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, it is the wrong signal to send at a time when the Middle East is in turmoil. Leadership is what they must have. And I contend to you that President Mubarak and his administration is the best friend that we have in the Middle East. I am recently returned from the World Economic Forum in Egypt on the Middle East, where countries from that region came together. We met with them, a good delegation of us. And we interacted with them for the 2, 3 days of that summit. They want to be good neighbors. And what I am here to tell you is that Egypt, with the President and his administration, is leading the effort to make sure that our relationship with them and theirs with the rest of the Middle East is one that is important, that is stabilized, and that it is secure. Egypt is a critical partner of the U.S. in the Middle East. Egypt is an honest broker with the Palestinians on its issues and on our issues. Egypt is the main protector of Israel, and we need that communication, we need that cooperation. Egypt supports us in the Gaza and the Egyptian border. Egypt has sent 800 peacekeepers to the Sudan. Egypt also participates in joint exercises with our military. They buy our U.S. military equipment. This is not the time to punish them. No, they are not a democracy like we have. This is the best country in the world. Our democracy is second to none. But do we penalize our neighbors, sovereign nations, because they are not like us? President Mubarak in the last 12 months has issued many decrees and is about changing how they believe and what they believe in Egypt. As a result of that, Egypt has seen three bombings, had not seen any in over 10, 15, 20 years. Because it is hard to change from one way of governing, and then come to another. You have people in Egypt rising up against the president and against us too. It is not time now. The timing is not good for the U.S. to back away from our relationship with Egypt as we help to stabilize that part of the world and remain partners with our country. Is it possible that some things might not be right? Yes. I would be the first to say that. Are they working to make it better? Yes, they are. Israel needs a strong Egypt. The U.S. needs a strong Egypt. So I implore my colleagues, and I hate to rise any time against my ranking member. I feel so passionately about this that I implore my colleagues to look at what is happening in the world, look at us as our Nation, we are a great Nation, second to none. Let us not forfeit our partnership with our friends that will destabilize our own country. There was a great act in the Middle East overnight, when one of the terrorists was captured, not only captured but further than that. Do we throw all of that for naught, or do we try to live in a world community where we can live together as brothers and sisters from different nationalities and ethnicities? I contend that Egypt is key in that and that we must continue. It is not about the money, I must say as I take my seat. The cost of military assistance is phenomenal. The amount that this will deduct from that, it is not about the money; it is about the good will and the partnership. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for our own security. I contend that Egypt is a partner with us, and we should maintain that bipartisanship, for it is they and us and nations of good will like us that will determine what kind of world your grandchildren will live in. Vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Kolbe and to my ranking member, Nita Lowey, who has shepherded this bill through the many years that I have been on the committee, through several chairmen and ranking members, I just want to say thank you very much for your leadership and for your cooperation, because it makes it easier for all of the subcommittee members when our Chair and ranking member work together. I want to thank you for that. To Chairman Kolbe, as you enter your next life, sir, I just want to say thank you for your leadership, your compassion and your working togetherness that you have demonstrated as I have worked with you over these last many years. We are going to miss you in this body. I am sure your next opportunities will also enhance this body. So congratulations and good luck to you. I stand in support of this bill. It is a bipartisan effort that we have worked together on for several months now. If we had more money, we could have done better. But we did the best with what we had. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the HIV account is probably funded higher than it has been ever under Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey's leadership and direction. HIV/AIDS is a pandemic in the world, and the U.S. is certainly doing our part. And I want to thank the administration as well as the Members of this Congress, both House and Senate, for standing by and making available treatment options so that people can have fuller, better lives. Our Child Survival Account, which is not at the level that I would like to see it, but continues to help with malaria and TB and other kinds of illnesses across this world. We thank you for that. The assistance that this bill gives Liberia, as well as the Sudan, we had the President from Liberia here not long ago, President Sirleaf, who has demonstrated a new wave in Liberia. I am happy that this bill will continue to assist them. The Darfur debacle that is currently under way in the Sudan, we have got to do more there. We have got to rise up as a Nation and offer the leadership of the United States to bring this decimation of millions of peoples and their lives and children to a rest. I do not want to really get into it here, but there will be much debate about Egypt. I want to talk about it just a moment. I was able to go to Egypt a couple of weeks ago with our Chair and ranking member; I have been in that region before. I come from the State of Michigan. Michigan has the largest amount of Arab Americans and Arabs in America in our part of the world through four of the Members of this Congress. Congressman Dingell, Conyers, Knollenberg and myself share that population of Arab Americans in our districts, have been living with them for decades, and they are a part of our family and our population in southeastern Michigan, where two- thirds of the population of our State lives. Egypt, the leading country in that part of the Middle East, is a friend of America. President Mubarak is the best friend we have in the region. There will be much debate about Egypt as we go forward. I do not want to get into the specifics right now, but I do want to say thank you to the chairman, there is a rescission of $200 million in the budget that was not spent. So there is some attention paid to what is happening in Egypt. Egypt needs to be our partner, and they need to know that we support them. The rescission that the Chairman offered has now been ratified by the subcommittee and the full committee. It is a step to say that we are watching you, we are working with you. Democracy in our region of the world is not the same as it is all over the world. I believe President Mubarak and his administration are doing what they can to maintain the stability in the region. So I believe this is a good bill. And as we go throughout the day to debate the 20-plus amendments, pay particular interest to what is happening in the world. We are a leader. We deserve it. And we look forward to your support.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, official business requires my absence from legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, May 22, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1235, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 177) and ``yea'' on H.R. 3858, Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 178).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at 1 o'clock this morning, the Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a budget that is fiscally irresponsible; increases the national debt; cuts veterans' health care; cuts student loans; and at the same time, President Bush passed a $70 billion tax cut bill for the wealthiest of America. What is just as bad is that the debt limit for our Nation has been increased five times since 2001 under President Bush and the Republicans. This is more than any Presidents that preceded him. Is this the kind of America that you want? American people, please speak out. Please speak up. We can do better. This is the best Nation in the world. We must change the way we do business in Congress. One hundred percent of Democrats voted against that budget at 1 o'clock this morning. It is bad for America. It is bad for our families, and we can do better.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for yielding to us. The Federal budget is $2.8 trillion. Ways and Means takes two-thirds of that. This budget is some $800-, nearly $900 billion. CBC's budget is within that. We pay as you go. We also invest in families, in health care, in education, in schools, in veterans health. Mr. Chairman, it is the only budget that will be before you tonight that addresses the families in America. Vote for the CBC budget. It is the budget that will restore and make sure that our families are strong. We have put a lot of time and attention in this. I want to commend Congressman Scott from Virginia and our own Chairman Watt. The CBC budget is sound, it is fiscal, and it strengthens America's families. A top priority of the CBC is to address the exploding budget deficit. If we do not control the budget today, we will not be able to afford Social Security and Medicare in the future. The CBC Alternative brings the budget into balance in 5 years and generates a surplus of $2.3 billion by FY 2011. Improves the deficit by a cumulative total of $313 billion and results in a savings of $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt. The CBC Budget achieves fiscal balance by aligning our spending and tax policies on a glide path that restores the financial future health of the country. It establishes PAYGO as a House rule, so we will avoid spending what we do not have. We must be realistic and include revenues and spending in any effort to bring our deficits under control. PAYGO does that. Ignoring PAYGO ignores the successful formula that brought us balanced budgets in the last half of the 1990s. It reduces funding for Ballistic Missile Defense, so we can increase funding for homeland security, veterans programs, and honor our commitment to our troops and their families. The CBC Budget reflects American values by investing in the security of our Nation, providing the health care for our veterans and supporting our troops who serve on the front lines. It increases funding for homeland security needs to provide for port security grants, interoperable communications systems for first responders, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and enhanced aviation security. It invests in other domestic priorities such as juvenile crime prevention, prisoner re-entry programs, restores cuts the Republican budget proposes in veterans' health care and improves benefits to the survivors of veterans. For all the President's talk about free trade, the CBC budget help those who are dislocated by our trade policies by providing $80 billion more in education and job training, and $20 million more for health care. It provides satisfactory levels of funding for Amtrak, Hope VI and Section 8 housing programs, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. My Republican friends are saying that their budget exercises fiscal constraint. Any budget that contains more tax expenditures than cost savings is not an exercise in fiscal responsibility. Last year we enacted $38 billion in spending cuts in one reconciliation bill, but cut taxes by another $70 billion in another reconciliation bill. The Republican budget follows that same formula. That is not the pathway to fiscal sanity. Support the CBC Budget Alternative.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purposes of explaining my vote on H.R. 5020, which this chamber considered yesterday. I have a high regard for the intelligence officials that serve our country, and I strongly support efforts to make sure that they have the resources to complete their mission competently, professionally, thoroughly and legally. After listening to the debate on this bill, I reached the conclusion that this bill does nothing to rein in this Administration's domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. This bill contains some good provisions. It imposes restrictions on the growth of the National Director of intelligence to ensure resources are applied to strengthening the intelligence community's ability to penetrate hard targets, and not just add to the growth in bureaucracy. It fully funds the counter-terrorism program. However, the bill's provisions concerning oversight of domestic counterintelligence activity is tepid at best. I believe we can conduct domestic intelligence activities in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. There exists a debate in this country if whether the NSA domestic surveillance program is being conducted within the limits of the FISA. During the debate on the bill, I learned several Members sought to offer a bipartisan amendment clarifying that all surveillance of American citizens must follow the law and be consonant with the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The Rules Committee denied us an opportunity to consider that amendment. Any process that denies us the opportunity to protect our constitutional guarantees does not deserve my support, and for that reason, I voted against the passage of H.R. 5020.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this opportunity to address this House to explain my vote on H.R. 4939, the Emergency War and Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which this chamber considered on March 16, 2006. Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership in the White House and the Pentagon. I also believe we need to continue our obligation to the people and states who fell victim to Hurricane Katrina. For these reasons, I supported the passage of H.R. 4929, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The funds in this bill will enable our soldiers and marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there, and it is vital that they have the equipment necessary to protect themselves against attack. Moreover, more money is provided in this bill to help our troops detect and destroy improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Although I disagree with the administration's conduct of the war, I do believe the one way we can bring our troops home sooner is to provide Iraqi security forces with the training and equipment they need to provide for the common defense of their own country and take the fight to the insurgency. Ultimately, the fate of their country will rise and fall on the Iraqis' ability to provide for their own security. To further help our troops, the money in this bill will take care of the health care needs of their families and cover the projected shortfall in the defense health care account. It also honors the obligation Congress made last year to increase the military death gratuity to $100,000 from $12,000 and subsidized life insurance benefits that were increased to $400,000 for the families of fallen loved ones. The bill also helps needy families offset the high cost of heating fuel by providing an additional $750 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Finally, the bill honors what I feel is our country's obligation to help the Gulf Coast region by appropriating $19.1 billion in disaster relief, community development and levee reconstruction monies. These programs deserve our support. We cannot turn our backs to protecting the safety and welfare of troops in harms way or ignore those who have gone homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina. These people need our help and that is why I voted to support this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the Republican higher education bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, H.R. 609, represents a missed opportunity to make college more affordable, boost America's economic competitiveness, and invest in America's future. At its core, the Higher Education Act, HEA, historically has sought to improve access to a college education for our Nation's most needy students. The current reauthorization bill does little to fulfill this premise and has the potential to greatly detract from that important goal. The goal of Congress and this bill should be to expand higher education opportunities, not restrict them. Despite Republican leadership's claims, H.R. 609, the ``Missed College Opportunities Act,'' does little to help the students it claims to help. Just a month after cutting student aid by $12 billion, Republicans continue to be out of touch with the needs of American students and families. H.R. 609 fails to provide a real increase in student aid. H.R. 609 fails to lower college loan interest rates. H.R. 609 freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant scholarship--at just $200 above current levels--through 2013 and it does not include any mandatory increase in Pell. The Democratic substitute, which was not adopted, would have cut interest rates in half for the borrowers, from a fixed rate of 6.8 percent to a low fixed rate of 3.4 percent. As a result the costs of college would be lowered by $2.4 billion for low- and middle-income students. In addition to making college more affordable, the Democratic legislation would have boosted college opportunities for minority students by: Establishing a new Predominantly Black Serving Institutions program to increase college participation rates of low-income black students; Creating a new Graduate Hispanic Serving Institutions program; and Creating a pilot program for year round Pell grants. Traditionally, higher education legislation has enjoyed widespread bipartisan participation and support but today I will vote against this higher education bill. American students and families are struggling to pay for college. Congress should pass legislation to control tuition costs and increase student aid and not miss this opportunity to help American families. I strongly support the Democratic substitute. I will vote against the underlying bill, H.R. 609, because it does not make college more affordable for American students and families.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business requires my presence in the congressional district, and I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, March 14, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 354, a resolution expressing the support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters access to the institution's campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds (rollcall No. 39).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal reasons require my absence from legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, February 14, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the contribution of the USO to our service men and women of our armed forces (rollcall No. 8) and ``yea'' on S. 1989, the Holly A. Charette Post Office Building Designation Act (rollcall No. 9).