Carolyn Kilpatrick

Ms. KILPATRICK

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in the natural disaster we have witnessed over the last 5 days. Our hearts go out to them and we are working desperately to address this desperate situation. I pay tribute to Democratic Leader Pelosi for giving this effort to provide for supplemental funding relief for the hurricane victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida the priority attention and urgency it deserves. Because of her forward thinking and sensitivity to the scope of this disaster, we are here today in this special session of Congress doing what we should be doing: responding to the needs of the thousands of victims of this natural disaster to make sure the money is available for food; water; emergency supplies; temporary shelter; command, control, and communications networks; public safety; public health and sanitation; and other forms of emergency assistance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for acceding to the gentlelady's call to convene the House to pass this $10 billion package. Today, we demonstrate that partisan politics stop when it comes to responding to the needs of thousands of Americans who find their very lives imperiled by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. We are showing that Congress can lead and provide a rapid response when misfortune strikes. This is not the time for recriminations. There will be plenty of time for that when Congress reconvenes next week to review the slowness and inadequacy of the response and consequence management efforts of the natural disaster that struck our Gulf Coast. The experience of my congressional office in trying to contact responsible Federal agencies involved with the effort shows that communications between congressional offices, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and other responding Federal agencies has not improved since 9/11. What shocks us as Americans is that the we are witnessing human tragedies on our television screens on a scale we do not expect to see in America. It is hard for us to accept a human tragedy like we see in the third world happen on our own shores. It is even harder for us to accept that our response to this human tragedy is no better than what we see by lesser and undeveloped countries. The lack of an effective response and plan of action has us all in shock. While no class has escaped the human tragedy, the disproportionate numbers of victims are black, poor, aged, disabled or otherwise physically debilitated. These are the people who are the lowest priority in emergency evacuation plans because we do not know how to address their fundamental needs. They are the first who depend on the Government for services, the first at the mercy of the elements but the last on civic emergency action plans. Our hearts go out to those who are stranded and dispossessed. We need leadership to address their needs. The private sector like the hotel industry and the civic community must step up to offer assistance. The city of Detroit has offered to transport 500 families to Detroit to shelter them and meet their basic human needs. The Mayor of Detroit, the Honorable Kwame Kilpatrick, has worked with FEMA, local hotels and food manufacturers to provide temporary shelter for an estimated 500 families. He has gained the cooperation of the city of Detroit School District to accommodate the children of dislocated families. We need more State and civic leaders to step up. I also want to acknowledge the offers of assistance our government has received from the international community. Governments from other countries have offered their expertise in airlifting residents and in other humanitarian response recovery techniques in our time of need. I hope we are big enough to accept these offers where there is a need. Again, I thank Democratic Leader Pelosi and the Speaker for seeing that Congress does its part to respond quickly. To all the victims, their families and loved ones, please know we stand with you in our actions and prayers.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that these people are not refugees. They are American citizens who pay taxes and are raising their children. I would hope that we would not relegate them to something less than American citizens. I rise in support of the legislation and would like to report on what the City of Detroit is doing. Mayor Kwami Kilpatrick has put together an organization with the private sector as well as FEMA over the last 48 hours, and we are offering to the families that have been decimated 500 housing spots immediately. We have been working with the United Way and the health care industry to provide the resources that these families will need, housing, health care, water, food, clothing. We in the City of Detroit stand ready, under Mayor Kilpatrick's leadership. We have spoken with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and all have agreed to work to move them now. We need other government officials from around the country to step up and to bring them home. The people of New Orleans have nothing to go back to. Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our Mayor and the City of Detroit. Detroit has stood up, through Mayor Kilpatrick's leadership, and we ask that other cities around this great Nation of ours who have the wherewithal, because private companies are ready to help, and they have helped us. The Detroit public schools have agreed to take children from the ravished areas. I thank the Mayor of Detroit as well as my colleague for yielding me this time.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act. This bill would hurt patients who are harmed by medical malpractice by arbitrarily capping damages, denying justice to injured patients and their families. This bill makes a number of changes to current law affecting medical malpractice lawsuits filed in Federal and State court, including limiting the amount of non-economic and punitive damages that could be awarded to a plaintiff, and restricting the contingency fees that can be charged by attorneys. The bill also pre-empts State laws that conflict with the enforcement of any of its provisions. The measure does not, however, pre-empt any State statutory limits on the amount of compensatory, punitive or total damages awarded in health care lawsuits. The provisions of the measure dealing with caps on awards would apply only to those States that have no statutory limits on damage awards in health care lawsuits. The bill seriously restricts the rights of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries, while rewarding insurance companies for bad investment decisions and doctors for practicing bad medicine. In the 13th District of Michigan and in many districts across the country, physicians have either retired prematurely or relocated their practices. The supporters of this bill claim their proposal would reduce insurance costs for doctors. This bill does not lower premiums for doctors, contains no insurance reforms, and would not address the rising cost of health care. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, which would directly address rising premiums by reforming malpractice insurance and stopping frivolous lawsuits. The Democratic substitute does not restrict the rights of injured patients who file meritorious claims. It requires certification, with civil penalties, that a pleading is not frivolous, factually inaccurate or designed to harass. It includes a 3-year statute of limitation; establishes an alternative dispute resolution process; limits suits for punitive damages; and applies 50 percent of awards from any punitive damages to a patient safety fund at HHS. Finally, it requires insurance companies to develop a plan to give 50 percent of their savings to reductions in medical malpractice rates for doctors. It is unfortunate the Democratic Substitute was not adopted. H.R. 5 in its present form does not address rising premiums and denies justice to injured patients and their families. Vote against H.R. 5.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, despite the President's oversell, this bill does nothing to improve our energy independence and does little to provide for a cleaner environment. The bill does nothing to lower gasoline prices, which are at an all-time high. This bill is a corporate giveaway to the largest multinational oil companies, coal, utility and other energy companies, who stand to receive a windfall of $14.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. Taxpayers are going to subsidize billions in loan guarantees to these industries, so the energy industry can be free to fail without having to face little financial risk. That is a sweet deal. With oil selling at $60 a barrel, this bill provides royalty-free drilling rights to the multinational oil companies to drill on public lands. This is making a sweet deal even sweeter. When the American consumer fills his or her car with gasoline selling over $2.30 a gallon, they will be secure in knowing that the record profits they are paying for big oil are being subsidized further at the expense of their tax dollars. Taxpayers are being asked to donate more than $14 billion in tax breaks, most of them to the oil and gas companies, the utilities, the nuclear industry and the coal industry. That is sweet on top of a sweeter deal for Big Oil. The renewable energy and energy efficiency industries are left with little. The bill preempts the ability of state and local governments to block the siting of Liquefied Natural Gas terminal in densely populated urban areas. It will weaken environmental protections with new loopholes for the oil and gas industry. It will allow the process of hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting diesel fuel into groundwater supplied and exempt other industry practices from the Clean Water Act, exemptions and the National Environmental Policy Act. This bill will authorize exploratory efforts to prepare for oil and gas drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas that are currently closed to drilling. One area that I am pleased to report is that the bill does ban drilling in the Great Lakes. This exercise is an unfortunate one. It is short on helping the nation's energy needs and long on subsidizing the oil and gas, nuclear, utility, and coal industries. Americans pay more than their fair share to support the record profit margins of the energy industry and now they are being asked to subsidize those record profits even more. This is a bad deal for American consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the passage of this bill.

Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3045, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). My opposition is based on my conclusion that CAFTA is another chapter in trade legislation that will spur job losses, depress American wages, eviscerate laborer's rights, emasculate the environment, and contribute to our nation's deficit. Recent statistics from the Labor Department indicate that America has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since the passage of NAFTA. In my home state of Michigan, we have experienced a net job loss of over 200,000 manufacturing jobs due to exports. Throughout the U.S., American workers suffer with anxiety about the elimination of their jobs each time we pass another free trade agreement. They know that factories are being relocated to foreign countries where they will be immune from paying U.S. taxes, and will be able to pay workers a fraction of U.S. hourly wages that range from $14 to almost $18. Each time we pass another trade agreement, their worst fears are realized. According to the United Nations International Labor Organization (ILO), the average hourly wage earner in Nicaragua makes 95 cents; $1 in Guatemala, and $1.25 in El Salvador. Such minuscule wages pose a tremendous incentive to Asian and U.S. manufacturers to build factories and strategic alliances in Central America. The same factories that will be created in Central America will be able to avoid strong environmental laws that exist in the U.S., thereby contributing to environmental degradation throughout Central America. If Americans have any concerns about the prospects posed by CAFTA, we need only look at the explosion of our deficit after the passage of NAFTA. Our trade deficit with Mexico mushroomed to $15 billion from a figure of $3 billion, resulting in a loss of 200,000 high wage U.S. jobs. I am a very concerned that worker protection provisions throughout Central America will be weakened if CAFTA is passed. The legislation omits an important protection that was included in NAFTA--that labor enforcement proceedings not be unnecessarily complicated. I reject the hypocrisy of a trade agreement that would sanction placing the welfare of low wage earners in jeopardy. In my state of Michigan, we have strong worker protections in place. I cannot in good conscience support a measure that would pose potential harm to workers throughout countries in Central America. Finally, supporters of CAFTA state that its passage will facilitate the elimination of tariffs and quotas and will ultimately result in increased trade and long-term growth. In reality, consumers and laborers in Central America will not be able to afford American manufactured goods. They will, however, be able to manufacture goods in Central America that will be sold in America with a profit margin that could not be realized if the same item were manufactured domestically. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to HR 3045, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Passage of this bill will accelerate job losses, contribute to our deficit, circumvent labor rights and contribute to global environmental degradation. My constituents have overwhelmingly expressed their concerns and opposition to HR 3045. I urge my colleagues in the House to defeat this measure and stand up for fair and free trade.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 25, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.J. Res. 59, expressing the sense of Congress concerning the establishment of an appropriate day for the commemoration of the women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women to vote in the United States (rollcall No. 417); ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 181, supporting the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month (rollcall No. 418); and ``yea'' on H.R. 2977, designating the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building'' (rollcall No. 419).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism and Prevention Reauthorization Act. I want to emphasize at the outset that I share the concern of my House colleagues that it is essential to protect our Nation and its citizens from terrorists seeking to harm our homeland and its citizens. I agree with my colleagues that no safe harbor should be available to terrorists. There should be no doubt that I wholeheartedly support enabling law enforcement officials with the authority to surveil and prosecute terrorists. But it is critical that we resist the temptation to develop laws that assault the constitutional protections afforded to Americans. I am alarmed about the scope of a number of provisions in the bill that are likely to lead to the abuse of personal freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Section 215, Seizure of Records, causes me great concern. This provision allows the FBI, based on the premise of conducting a terror investigation, to obtain any record, after receiving approval from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, Court. My concern is that law enforcement agencies can engage in such activity without meeting the standard legal threshold of ``probable cause'', thereby leading to potential cases of abuse. I am also very concerned about the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct ``Roving John Doe Wiretaps''. Under this scenario, criminal investigators can obtain wire tap authority to employ devices that roam with someone who has been designated as involved in terrorist activity; that device can be attached to an instrument that can be transported through multiple jurisdictions. Section 213 that allows for ``Sneak and Peek'' authority related to searches and seizures. This is a provision that allows for run-of-the- mill criminal investigations to be employed while conducting the war on terrorism. The problem with this provision is that 90 percent of the searches are used for drug and fraud cases and not for terrorism. I am concerned about the lack of oversight that could apply to these types of investigations. I recognize that some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have served a useful purpose and are scheduled to end. The process of reviewing provisions and determining whether to extend them allows the House to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriations of the provisions. Two of the provisions in this bill are now being scheduled to extend for 10 years as opposed to the 4 years in the expiring legislation. In this scenario, a flawed provision could extend 6 years beyond the normal time frame. Fourteen sections of H.R. 3199 bill will become permanent, and will have virtually no oversight. I continue to have great reservations about the use of National Security Letters, NSLs. National Security Letters are applicable within Section 505. The NSLs deny individuals due process by barring targets of investigations access to court and the right to challenge the NSLs. The NSLs allows institutions, i.e. banks, Internet Service Providers, ISPs, to divulge critical information about individuals under investigation. Private information about an individual can be shared with law enforcement, but the organization would be ``gagged'' from revealing its efforts. This is a terribly flawed and wrong process. Mr. Chairman, I content that it is essential to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens as we engaged in the ongoing war on terrorism. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Bill of Rights and resist the temptation to curtail those rights in our collective pursuits to develop legislation to counter the threats posed by terrorists. My review of H.R. 3199 causes my great concern that we are undermining the civil liberties of Americans. I stand as a patriot for America and our Constitution, and in opposition to H.R. 3199. I urge my colleagues to join my in defeating this measure. I support sending this over-reaching legislation back to committee, and ask the Judiciary Committee to come back with a better bill that does not shed our civil liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution. It is vital that we address terrorism specifically, while simultaneously ensuring that these statutory provisions continued to be forced to comply with the legal threshold of probable cause.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Thursday, July 14, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6 offered by Mrs. Capps (rollcall No. 373); ``yea'' on H.R. 3100, the East Asia Security Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 374); ``yea'' on H. Res. 356, a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in London (rollcall No. 375); ``aye'' on the Rohrabacher Amendment to H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 376); ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Messrs. Blumenauer and Flake to H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 377); ``yea'' on approving H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 378); and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 191, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War (rollcall No. 379).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Madam Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 11, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 168, a resolution condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights (rollcall No. 363); and ``yea'' on H. Res. 333, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a ``National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan'' (rollcall No. 364).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to prohibit the sale of an American oil company to the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, recommending in this bill that Treasury not be allowed to make a favorable recommendation that our ninth largest oil company should be sold to the Chinese. Some people say, why is the gentlewoman from Michigan interested in this amendment? We are interested because we believe that Americans ought to be able to have and hold and own American companies. Did my colleagues know that 53 percent of the privately held debt of this country is held by private investors, private countries? Japan being first, China being second. This is not the time to now sell our ninth largest oil refinery to a Chinese company. Our trade deficit with China is $160 billion. We buy $160 billion more from China that they buy from the United States. This is not the time, if there ever is. Our national security, which is what the CFIUS committee will look at, that is the Committee on Federal Investments in the United States chaired by Secretary of the Treasury Snow, also on that panel is the Defense Secretary as well as the Secretary of State; we believe that this is not right for our country, it is not right for our economic security. We must also look at, and CFIUS right now only looks at national security, and probably that ought to be amended. CFIUS was established in 1988, a 12-member committee. They should probably also look at economic security, and we are looking at offering an amendment to amend that legislation as well. China is an economic and military power. They are one of our largest competitors. In my own district, General Motors put $2 billion into China last year and just 2 months ago said that they closed 30 plants, they closed 30 General Motors plants in America and laid off thousands of workers. Should we work with China? Yes, we should. Should we turn over our government business to China? No, we should not. This amendment that I am offering would not allow the Treasury Department to issue a favorable recommendation to the President of a China company, Chinese National Offshore Oil, to sell our own, very own Unocal company. So I am hoping that as we go through this debate and as we come to talk about this issue, we take care of Americans first. I was just in a meeting this morning where we talked about the loss of our American jobs. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we have this debate, we will continue and make sure that we maintain American ownership of American corporations. Fifty-three percent of the privately held debt in America today, the bulk of it is held by Japan first, as I mentioned, and also then China. Intellectual property rights, the Chinese have no respect for our intellectual property rights. In the auto industry right now, China also abuses our parts and uses our technology. So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that this amendment be accepted by our entire body, that we make sure that American companies stay in America, and that we continue to employ, that we continue to train and educate our children so that your grandchildren and mine will have an America that is strong. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a member of the committee.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the resolution. The House went on record earlier today in a strong, bipartisan way, to support that we would, first of all, make sure that CFIUS, which is the Committee on Investments in the United States chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury Snow, that we go on record making sure that we not spend money at this time for a Chinese company that is Communist-owned by the Communist government to take over our ninth largest oil company. The Congress has spoken, and we are happy that we did so in a loud, strong voice. The sense of the Congress resolution before us is one that we also support. General Motors is losing technology to China, and it is costing the company $12 billion a year. Intellectual property rights are not being protected, and China has been abusing those rights. We must protect American business, and we must do what is necessary. So, I am proud of the Congress and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for introducing this resolution that we also further state our strong support for not allowing the sale to go through. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). (Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing us to have this debate. I believe it has been a good debate and we do support the amendment, many of us on this side of the aisle, although a couple who spoke do not support it. It is important as we talked about it earlier today that we remembered that 53 percent of America's private debt is held by foreign countries, 53 percent. That means many of our debt and the two owners of those debts are Japan first, and China second. 53 percent of our private debt is owned by foreign countries. I think that is not good for our country, for our grandchildren. We have got to strengthen America, calling those debts when we are able to pay them off, and give America back to Americans. Should we have work with China? And I said this earlier, yes, we should, and other foreign markets. This is an international, global community that we live in. But we should always put America first, and I think the debate that we have had today, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for some of his remarks and for the resolution, the sense of the Congress, again, will reinforce what we have done earlier today. We have got to make sure that American companies stay strong so that Americans can continue to work, so they can take care of their families, pay taxes, help cities, towns and villages maintain themselves with the revenue that it gets from them. So trade, yes, and this is free trade. Somebody said free trade. This is not that deal. This is something less than that. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) spoke, it is getting the corner of the market because you can pay $18.5 billion in cash at a time when our country has $160 billion trade deficit and then you turn some of that money back and want to buy our company. It is not a good deal. We call on CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, Secretary Snowe and his 12-member committee to look closely at what is before them, to do the proper investigation and then not to recommend to the President that we go forward with this sale. It is not the right time for America. It will weaken our economy. And our national security interests as well as our economic interests, as well as our energy interests are at stake. So, Mr. Speaker, let us not do this sale. Let us continue to build America and keep America strong. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with us, and I understand the point of order. It is something we need to bring to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations. There has been much discussion already today about the section 8 program and the need of millions of Americans who are now in the section 8 program and millions more who are waiting for affordable, safe, clean housing. This amendment would talk about the distribution of the dollars, once we restore the section 8, and as we are in the section 8 program today. In 1993, this Congress passed an act that would limit the distribution of those dollars and use a 3-month window to decide how those dollars would be distributed. First, the dollars are not enough, then they use a 3-month window rather than 12 months of the fluctuating cost of public housing authorities to decide how much each public housing authority will get in the section 8 housing choice voucher program. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for providing an appropriation in this bill to address some of that need in the 2006 budget. As of right now, as this bill was debated and as it passed the Congress in 2003, in 2004, my district and districts all over America lost hundreds of thousands of vouchers. And for my district, in the 13th Congressional District, that was 1,500 vouchers people had in 2004 that they do not have in 2005, and there is some help in this budget to rectify some of that.

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.