Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this week, the House Republican leadership will once again leave town for another recess without seriously addressing our Nation's energy crisis. House Republicans have trumpeted this week as Energy Week. You would think if they were really serious about tackling this crisis we would spend the entire week debating a comprehensive energy proposal that would end our reliance on foreign oil and foster new energy technologies.

Instead, we get more of the same from the Republican leadership. Energy Week has turned into Energy Day, a debate on one bill that would allow oil and gas companies to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf off both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Drilling off our coasts is not only environmentally and economically risky, but it is not possible for another 7 years. How is that supposed to help consumers today? The answer is that it is not.

House Republicans are only interested in lining the pocketbooks of the oil and gas companies. If House Republicans were serious about addressing our energy crisis, the House would debate my legislation that would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by $20. Instead, we spend 1 day on a bill that does nothing to assist Americans with the high cost of energy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. For years, the Bush administration has been talking tough on drugs and law enforcement while slashing the funding that makes law enforcement possible. The big drops in crime during the Clinton years were made possible by programs like Byrne that put dollars where they are needed: in the hands of local police departments and task forces.

Since 2001, however, funding has been cut again and again, from over $1 billion to less than $367 million in this year's bill. These cuts go against everything we know to be true about drug policy. Ninety percent of drug arrests are made by State and local law enforcement, and local drug task forces are our first and best line of defense against the growing problem of meth in our communities. Now more than ever, we need to support the work that our local law enforcement officers are doing.

Mr. Speaker, 11 days ago in this House, we had a partial limited debate on the war in Iraq. The same day, it was reported in a number of the area newspapers that there was consideration of giving amnesty to those Iraqis that killed, maimed, or injured U.S. troops or citizens. A few of us took to the floor during the Iraq debate and raised the issue of amnesty. Is this what we are fighting for in Iraq, the type of democracy that gives people who kill American soldiers amnesty?

Last week, I joined with Democratic leadership, Mr. Larson, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Abercrombie, and others, and introduced House Joint Resolution 90, which says: Disapproving the grant of amnesty by the government of Iraq to persons known to have attacked, kidnapped, wounded, or killed members of the Armed Forces of the United States or citizens of the United States in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, proposing amnesty for Iraqis who have killed our troops is another stunning example of the failure of this administration's handling of the war and their overall policy. I, like the rest of the American people, would like to know, what did the President know about this amnesty and when did he know it? I find it coincidental that the day after the President comes back from his secret trip to Iraq, we start hearing these reports in newspapers about an agreement on amnesty.

In 3 years of war, we have lost more than 2,500 of our best and brightest Americans. The war in Iraq now boils down to amnesty for insurgents who attack and kill U.S. troops? This amnesty proposal appears to have the tacit agreement of the Bush administration and the Iraqi government officials, as they were quoted in the Washington Post as saying, and I quote, ``There is some sort of understanding between us and the U.S.-led multi-national force in Iraq that there is a patriotic feeling among Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe.''

So officials in the Iraqi government believe that this is a done deal, and that attacking U.S. troops is a courageous act of self- defense. We could not disagree with it more, and that is why we have our House Joint Resolution 90.

I want to know, who agreed with the Iraqi government? How did they get this understanding that it is part of the policy of the United States that it is okay to kill U.S. troops? Was it someone in the Department of Defense, someone in the Secretary of State, or, again, during the meeting the President had in Iraq a few weeks ago, was that part of it?

The amnesty was reported in the papers the same day that two U.S. troops were found to be tortured and mutilated in Iraq. Do we give their torturers, their killers amnesty? Is this what the Commander-in- Chief does, lead troops into war, and then it develops into a civil war and those who kill U.S. troops get amnesty?

We ask the Republican leadership to bring House Joint Resolution 90 up before this floor. Let's bring it up before the Fourth of July recess, pass this House resolution, it should move quickly, and it should be a bipartisan resolution.

There is a lot of talk in this town, and some people like to use the word cut and run. Let me ask this. If the administration and if this Congress accept a policy that says it is okay to kill U.S. troops, what sort of message are we sending to the Iraqis on the street that it is okay to kill U.S. troops? But, more importantly, what sort of message are we sending to the 130,000 troops that are over there fighting in Iraq? To me, a proposal giving amnesty to those who have murdered Americans is the real definition of cut and run.

I urge the Republican leadership to allow our resolution to come to the floor, House Joint Resolution 90. No amnesty in Iraq, no amnesty for those who kill, maim, torture U.S. troops or our citizens in the country of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order and address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I come before you tonight after listening to the presentations that have been taking place all day, not only as a Member of this body but as a parent who has lost a child. My son, B.J., who passed away a little more than 6 years ago, would have turned 24 tomorrow. Every time I learn about loss of life in Iraq, another son or daughter, mother or father, brother or sister, I can't help but think about my son B.J. and the profound pain and loss that will remain with us for the rest of our lives.

That intense pain that we feel over the loss of B.J. is being felt every day by those families here in America who have suffered a loss in Iraq, and that is one of the reasons why I oppose this war and one of the reasons why I plan to oppose this resolution.

But one of the other reasons I oppose this resolution deals with honesty and truth. Boake Carter is credited with saying that ``in time of war, the first casualty is truth.''

Mr. Carter's statement is applicable to the resolution before us today. Like the one-sided resolution presented to the House last December, the Republican majority has refused to allow a true debate on the war on Iraq. The truth is 2,500 servicemen and -women have died in Iraq. The truth is the so-called coalition countries, including Great Britain, are drawing down their troops in Iraq. The truth is the Republican majority in its resolution today wants to blur the truth, that the cause and purpose of the war in Iraq is the same as the war in Afghanistan.

The truth is the Republican majority in its resolution today wants to blur the truth that the cause and purpose of the war in Iraq is justified by the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The truth is the Republican majority in its resolution today wants to blur the truth saying that we who oppose this war in Iraq are not as patriotic as those who support the war.

The truth is the Republican majority in its resolution today wants to blur the truth saying that those who do not support Resolution 861 do not support our troops in Iraq.

Resolution 861 continues the open-ended commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq and embodies President Bush's latest attempt to justify the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Last December the President and his congressional allies claimed the Iraqi parliamentarian elections were a ``crucial victory'' in establishing a democracy in Iraq. Thus, through this election, ``victory'' was inevitable in Iraq. Even Vice President Cheney declared the insurgency was ``in their final throes.''

America has heard this type of reasoning before from President Johnson during the Vietnam War. In 1967, the South Vietnamese freely elected their government. President Johnson then declared the Vietnamese election had established a democracy supported by the Vietnamese people. Even our Vietnam military leaders declared the war would be over soon as there was ``light at the end of the tunnel.''

After this Vietnamese election, and the light at the end of the tunnel, 3,800 more Americans would die in Southeast Asia.

Since May 1, 2003, when the President declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq, over 2,300 troops have died in Iraq. What is the victory that the President and his congressional supporters envision in Iraq for the U.S.? What is the strategy for the Iraqi war mission to be accomplished?

This is not a war like our grandparents fought. This is an insurgency. There is no country to hoist a white flag of surrender. There is no recognized political entity that America can

sign a peace agreement with. There is only an insurgency of fanatics who have no desire to reach peace with the United States.

Our brave men and women in the military are trying to build a democracy in a country that views U.S. troops as occupiers. Almost one- half of the Iraqi people believe it is justifiable to kill our U.S. troops. The U.S. military has been used to prop up a government being threatened by a guerrilla insurgency.

With this Iraqi insurgency, I cannot envision an event, a goal or a date when victory in Iraq can indisputably be achieved.

What has President Bush said about achieving victory in Iraq? The President said the United States will stay the course and the next President will have to withdraw our troops from Iraq. It will be 2\1/2\ years, or 30 months, before this President leaves office. Does this mean America will spend another $300 billion on the war in Iraq? Does it mean America will suffer 18,000 more young people to war wounds and another 2,500 killed?

In October 2002, I warned that this administration would open a Pandora's box if the United States unilaterally went to war in Iraq. Mr. President, you opened Pandora's box with all its death and destruction of American and Iraqi lives. You cannot simply wash your hands of this war and leave it to the next President to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

It is time for America to demand accountability from the President and the Iraqi Government. It is time for an Iraqi accountability plan to bring this war to an end.

Because of America's sacrifice, the people of Iraq have been able to participate in a democracy by electing the leaders who will shape their young government and institute laws to protect them. This is a giant step towards accountability.

The formation of a new government in Iraq is more than just filling out a cabinet. It is an opportunity for the people of Iraq to accept responsibility for governing their country. This responsibility extends beyond voting or forming a new government or killing Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Now, is the time for Iraqis to be accountable for themselves and their developing country.

I believe that in order for the principles of democracy to take hold in Iraq, the target of the insurgency, our U.S. troops, must be removed as soon as possible!

The President must develop a strategy to bring our troops home. I believe America should demand from the Bush administration an Iraq Accountability Plan that will set clear and measurable goals. The United States has provided the Iraqis with an opportunity for freedom, democracy and self-governance. But it is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to seize the opportunity and set forth these principles in their land.

In this war; the truth lies in today's The Washington Post headline which states ``Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks on U.S. Military.'' The war in Iraq has boiled down to amnesty for insurgents who attack and kill U.S. soldiers but no amnesty for the insurgents who kill Iraqi citizens. This amnesty proposal appears to have the tacit agreement of the Bush Administration for Iraqi government Officials stated, ``There's some sort of understanding between us and the UNF-I [The U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq] that there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks [on U.S. military personnel] are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe.''

If you vote ``yes'' on this Resolution, you are supporting the Iraqi Government's belief that it is ``ok'' to give Iraqi's amnesty for attacking and killing U.S. troops!

I cannot, and I will not support Resolution 861 which supports a government that pardons and justifies killing of 2,500 American personnel as Iraqi patriotism!

I will not support a resolution that leaves our commitment in Iraqi ``open-ended''; or which allows this President to hand over the Iraq war to the next President, 30 months from now; nor a resolution that does not have a strategy to end the war in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 12 extraordinary young women and their coaches who showed incredible determination, character and athleticism in winning the 2005 Girls Class-C State of Michigan Basketball Championship.

As the 2005 season commenced, the Houghton Gremlins were considered by many observers to be in a rebuilding phase. However, this dedicated team of young women was determined to shed that label, disprove the skeptics and move beyond the regional level.

The young women of the 2005 Houghton Gremlins were not the tallest team. In fact, not a single one of their players stood above 5 feet and 8 inches. Many of the teams the Gremlins faced had players who were taller than 6 feet. Yet, what the Gremlins lacked in height, they made up for in speed, skill and, most importantly, a tireless desire to succeed. In many ways, they embodied the famous Theodore Roosevelt quote, ``What matters is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.''

The Gremlin's regular season record of 18-2 demonstrated their winning attitude. Their undefeated record within the West PAC Conference was yet further evidence of their hard work. However, as the post season began, the Gremlins felt that even with a great regular season, they had not yet accomplished their goal.

Winning in the post season would require living up to a favorite saying of their coach, Julie Filpus: ``Winners are like biscuits, when things heat up, they rise to the occasion.''

The Gremlins took that advice to heart by earning a trip to the quarterfinals with timely three point shots, accurate free throw shooting and fast break layups. On November 28th, the Gremlins packed their bags and headed downstate to Lansing to compete for a state championship.

In Lansing, the Gremlins proved once more that they simply would not give up. At the end of the first half of the title game, Houghton trailed by ten points. However, the Gremlins refocused, rallied and regained their lead. Ultimately, the Lady Gremlins were victorious, eking out a 50-44 victory over the unbeaten Michigan Center.

Athletics in our public schools are meant to teach young people important life lessons such as the value of teamwork and the importance of hard work. Clearly, the 2005 Houghton Gremlins embody these values.

Mr. Speaker, these young women won not only a trophy, but also the admiration, respect and pride of the entire Houghton and Upper Peninsula community. I therefore commend the players, Callen Richards, Jodi Riutta, Whitney Rivest, Molly Turner, Amy Erva, Brooke Asiala, Nicole Asiala, Madeline Northey, Kristen Reed, Beth Sutherland, Josie Riutta and team captain Alyssa Polso. I also salute their coaches, Julie Filpus, Wayne Henry, Chuck LaPointe and Jen Sundstrom, for serving as role models and mentors to these talented young women.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting the Class C Michigan Basketball Champions, the Houghton Gremlins, their coaches and loyal fans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has dedicated his life to education. Dr. Michael Allkins will retire this month from Bay de Noc Community College, an institution that owes him a debt of gratitude for his tireless work to maintain, improve and strengthen not only the college, but the surrounding community.

Dr. Allkins was appointed president of Bay de Noc Community College (Bay) on August 1st of 1997. During his tenure, President Allkins accomplished much, ensuring that Bay remains one of the finest community colleges in the Nation. On July 1st of 2006, his time at Bay will come to an end as he and his wife Linda begin a much deserved retirement.

During his administration, Dr. Allkins presided over the completion of the Joseph Heirman University Center, remodeled the Student Center, and improved the chemistry and water technology labs on the campus.

Bay was the first college in Michigan to be awarded a Michigan Technical Education Center. This innovative statewide program ensures that community colleges provide training that is relevant to the needs of local employers. It is through Dr. Allkins' leadership that Bay, in Escanaba, Michigan, was able to open the very first such technical training center in the entire state.

That accomplishment alone demonstrates that Dr. Allkins is a forward thinking leader with a strategy for Bay's future. However, Dr. Allkins' accomplishments span well beyond the Technical Education Center. For over 10 years, the staff and faculty of Bay de Noc had been working to expand the college by opening a campus in neighboring Dickinson County. Under the leadership of Dr. Allkins, the college finally succeeded in passing a millage to fund the expansion and better serve Bay's growing student body 55 miles away from the main campus. Dr. Allkins was instrumental in passing the millage and breaking ground for the new facility.

Dr. Allkins also led Bay through a lengthy, 10-year reaccreditation effort. This reaccreditation required improving the curriculum in general education, reviewing and assessing individual programs and making technological improvements a priority. Dr. Allkins also bolstered programs at the college that recognized the achievements of students, faculty and alumni and formalized Bay's graduation ceremonies.

As any president of an educational institution must be, Dr. Allkins was also an effective ambassador for Bay. He was known for working with the Michigan Community College Association and with legislators to lay a stable financial foundation for Bay. Rural community colleges often have to assert themselves to receive their fair share of funding and Dr. Allkins was an effective advocate for Bay, working to see equitable funding for Michigan community colleges.

Dr. Allkins was also involved in a variety of volunteer organizations in Escanaba and Delta counties. He served on the boards of the Delta County Area Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Alliance, the Upper Peninsula Great Lakes Educational Technologies, the YMCA and the Saint Francis Hospital Advisory Committee. He is an active member of the Escanaba Rotary Club.

Even prior to coming to Bay de Noc Community College, Dr. Allkins had already enjoyed a career dedicated to education. As Executive Vice President of Instruction and Student Services, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Interim President at South West Community College in Mount Gay, West Virginia, Dr. Allkins made a number of important contributions to preserving and growing that institution.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Michael Allkins has clearly made education and rural education, in particular, the focus of his career. Bay de Noc Community College and its surrounding communities are better for having enjoyed his stewardship. Because of his leadership skills and the importance of Bay de Noc Community College to the region, all of the Upper Peninsula benefited from having Dr. Michael Allkins and his wife, Linda Hirvonen, as professional citizens in our region of the country.

I ask the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Dr. Michael Allkins on his retirement and in thanking him and Linda for their commitment to education and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this Flag Day to commend a group of my constituents who are, in their own unique way, honoring our troops and offering comfort to our war injured servicemen and servicewomen.

Most people have never heard of Atlanta, Michigan. However, just because the town is small in population, does not mean it is not big on patriotism. This was demonstrated most recently by the area's Thunder Bay Quilt Guild.

The Thunder Bay Quilt Guild is a group of area women who meet every Thursday to work on quilting projects. Sometimes the quilters work on their own individual projects, but often there is a special project these quilters eagerly undertake.

In the past, the Guild has assisted a variety of important charities. For instance, the Guild has sewn quilts for use in neonatal hospitals to keep children between birth and four years of age warm during their stay in the hospital.

While these dedicated quilters often do admirable work, most recently the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild paid tribute to our fighting men and women who have returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan and could use some basic comfort. Already, the Guild has prepared and shipped 60 ``Hero Quilts'' to Walter Reed Hospital where they are being distributed to troops who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with injuries.

Each quilt is sewn with a red, white and blue pattern and has affixed to it a simple message that reads, ``This Hero's Quilt was made for you by members of the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild. It comes with our prayers for your recovery and our heartfelt thanks for your service to our country.''

Approximately 60 women belong to the Guild and pitched in on this effort, delivering to our troops a simple reminder that, back home, they are remembered and recognized as heroes.

The impetus for this idea came from Cathy McIntee, another Michigan native who had friends in the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild. Ms. McIntee's son is currently serving in Iraq and Ms. McIntee designed the first ``Hero Quilt.'' The members of the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild then rallied together in support of the cause and began sewing quilts for wounded heroes for delivery to Walter Reed.

Mr. Speaker, quilting enjoys a rich heritage in American history. As the activity has evolved over the years, quilting has become a way to bring people in a community together through quilting guilds or ``quilting bees.'' Quilting is also a way to honor and preserve American history. Many of these organizations are extremely altruistic, generously donating their work to charities, the needy and others.

Clearly, the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild exemplifies that tradition. Their ``Hero Quilts'' are an impressive example of how even a small community, when inspired and united, can lend support to those who need it most.

As one might expect, the members of the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild are modest about their contributions. As JoEllen Moulton, one of their leading members remarked, ``Others have given so much more than us.''

Nonetheless, for the wounded servicemen and servicewomen at Walter Reed hospital, I am certain that the arrival of a handmade quilt was a pleasant surprise and a source of comfort. This contribution from the Thunder Bay Quilt Guild in the small town of Atlanta, Michigan was, indeed, a big accomplishment and, Mr. Speaker, I ask you and the U.S. House of Representatives to join me on this Flag Day in thanking these patriotic, dedicated quilters for their work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of the Congressional Rural Caucus with my friend, Mr. Gutknecht from Minnesota. This amendment makes a good bill better. Our amendment is not controversial, it simply is a savings clause. It preserves the ability of the FCC to extend universal service fund and intercarrier compensation obligation to Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP providers.

The problem is that the underlying bill extends many new rights to VoIP providers, but extends only some of the responsibility. This leaves out the responsibility to contribute to the universal service system and pay appropriate compensation for use of the network.

These two funding mechanisms have ensured that we enjoy the ubiquitous phone coverage we have today, and USF funds provide affordable broadband access for low income schools, libraries, and rural health facilities.

During our hearings, Jeffrey Citron of the Vonage Holdings Company stated, and I quote: ``As a businessman, I don't get nor do I expect a free ride on anyone's network.'' Kyle McSlarrow, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telephone Association stated, ``The cable industry strongly supports the goals and purposes of universal service fund. Thus, cable operators that offer VoIP services already pay millions of dollars into the current system, and we support making that obligation to everyone.''

Mr. Speaker, for a second time this year the Republicans are attempting to move legislation that would significantly alter Federal law regarding the refinery permitting process without a committee hearing, without a markup, without even allowing the bill to be amended on the floor. This bill is a rerun of the Gasoline for America's Security Act, the GAS Act, which was only approved by the House by two votes after the Republican leadership twisted arms and held the vote open for 45 minutes.

The GAS Act was a bad bill then and this is a bad bill now. While proponents contend that the oil companies are unable to improve their refinery capacity because of excessive regulation, the truth is oil companies have intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up gas prices.

I have here three memos, from Chevron, from Mobil, from Texaco, all specifically advocating that these companies, these refineries, limit their refinery capacity to drive up the price for gasoline for America. From September 2004 to September 2005 the refineries' profits increased by 255 percent. During the first quarter of 2006 Valero Energy Company, the largest refiner in the United States, recorded profits 60 percent higher than last year. Obviously, complying with Federal regulation does not present these companies with a significant financial hardship or hardship to put forth refining.

By pushing refinery legislation through the House without any hearings, debate or amendments, we are doing the American people a great disservice. I encourage my Republican colleagues to address real legislation that can help the consumer at the pump rather than legislation that provides additional handouts and free rides for their friends in the oil industry.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man of honor, faith, family, and selfless service. On April 13, James (Jim) J. Vincent, Jr. lost his life when the County Rescue helicopter he was piloting had a catastrophic failure.

Jim Vincent was a native of my home town of Menominee, Michigan. Jim excelled at high school sports and developed discipline, leadership, and respect at an early age. He enlisted in the United States Navy, where he spent 6 years serving his country. Wanting to become a pilot, he joined the United States Coast Guard, received world-class training, and began flying search and rescue missions.

I had the pleasure of working with Jim when he moved to Traverse City, Michigan, and was based out of the Coast Guard Air Station Traverse City. On a couple of occasions I flew with Jim. His skills as a pilot were impeccable. He took his job seriously, and Jim was the consummate professional. He had an ability to relate and work well with officers, enlisted men, and civilians. He treated everyone with respect and was always willing to lend a hand.

There are countless stories of Jim helping others with everything from re-wiring their homes, to work at the local American Legion, to helping friends pack up and move during relocation for work. One of the more touching stories about Jim was told by a fellow Coast Guardsman who went through officer training school with him. This cadet was at a point where he wasn't sure if he could complete the training. During one particularly difficult training task, Jim put his arm around his classmate and told him ``You know what, it's gonna be all right.'' That classmate found strength in Jim's words and managed to complete officer training school. He went on to become Cmdr. Sam Creech, who is now the operations officer at Jim's old base, Coast Guard Air Station Traverse City.

After 20 years of combined service in the Navy and Coast Guard, Jim and his family moved back home to Menominee where they could be near their extended family and build their dream home. Jim, his wife Gina, their sons, Jim III and Luke, and their daughter, Vanessa, worked together on construction of their home overlooking the waters of Green Bay. They put a lot of sweat and love into the home.

Jim worked for a while as a contract employee for the Navy at the Marinette Marine shipyard, just across the Michigan/Wisconsin border from Menominee. However, Jim wanted to continue to fly helicopters. In the summer of 2004 he landed a job with County Rescue flying Eagle III, an emergency air and ground transportation program, which provides Critical Care level treatments during rapid transport of critically ill or injured patients. The job was just outside Green Bay, Wisconsin, which required days away from home. Jim found the job very rewarding and by all accounts, he quickly earned the respect and admiration of his peers. While he was serious about his job, he also had a great sense of humor--often playing pranks on co-workers.

Mr. Speaker, for anyone who works in the military there are significant sacrifices that their families make in terms of time away from the family. While Jim did need to spend time away from his family throughout his career, he always had a deep love for his family. Jim had a strong faith in God and was an active member of Holy Redeemer Catholic Church. He and Gina believe in the power of God. In February they attended a conference put on by Father John Corapi and Jim was fond of Father Corapi's teachings. Now, as Gina, Jim III, Luke, and Vanessa struggle to move forward with their lives, they have turned to God for strength and comfort, With this strong faith, support from family and friends, and with time, I am confident that they will find the strength to persevere.

As we commemorate this Memorial Day, I am reminded of a beautiful sunny summer day in Traverse City when Jim Vincent walked across the Coast Guard hanger to greet a veteran who was seated awaiting the start of a program. As Jim approached the veteran, he reached out to shake the man's hand and simply said, ``Sir, thank you for your service to our country.'' The veteran's eyes welled with tears as he replied, ``You're welcome,'' So as I conclude Mr. Speaker let me simply say ``Jim, thank you for your service to our country.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's families face a growing threat from the proliferation of child exploitation and pornography on the Internet. One in five children report having been sexually solicited on the Internet; 3.5 million pornographic images of children of American children are now estimated to be in circulation on the Internet. This is a rapidly growing problem and one which has already grown far beyond what most Americans are aware of.

Last year alone, child pornography brought traffickers $20 billion in profits as compared to only $3 billion for legitimate Internet music sales. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on which I sit as the ranking member recently held hearings to highlight this growing threat.

During the course of these hearings, members of the subcommittee had a chance to hear about the excellent work the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Cyber Crime Center is doing to combat child exploitation. Since the center was founded in 2003, less than 3 years ago, its work has resulted in arrests of over 7,500 child predators.

The Cyber Crimes Center was funded at only $6 million last year, but has already been recognized as being at the forefront in fighting, in the fight against child exploitation and Internet crime. My amendment would add $5 billion to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses which would be used by the Cyber Crimes Center to expand their operations.

The $5 million would be offset by reduction in the Office of the Secretary, which is funded over $95 million in the base bill. I believe that this $5 million amendment is the least we can do in the fight against a $20 billion criminal industry that preys on our children.

This is a chance to reward and expand the excellent law enforcement work being done at ICE and to take steps to combat the increasing threat to our children and families. If you look at the committee report, it indicates, and I quote from the committee report in support of this legislation here today, this year, the committee notes gaps in funding for drug interdiction, human smuggling, cyber crimes, child pornography, Secret Service investigations and funding for our first responders.

The committee recommendation includes $5 million, the same as fiscal year 2006, for memory and technology support for the Cyber Crimes Center. We are doing what the committee is asking us to do.

Who are the victims of child pornography? Eighty percent of these predators have material depicting children under the age of 12; 40 percent under the age of 6; and 20 percent are victims under the age of 3. Victims are 28 times more likely to become prostitutes; 86 percent of the victims develop serious long-term mental illness.

Mr. Chairman, we are working on this amendment here tonight, and we are taking it from the Secretary's budget, and I am sure that the chairman will once again say we are going

to take this Secretary away and have nothing left.

Well, there is $95 million. We want $5 million, because this is a growing problem. It has been by leaps and bounds. In fact, we are doing more hearings as soon as we get back first part of June. We have had hearings in which 15,000 names, addresses, credit cards, Internet provider addresses were turned over to the Department of Justice, and nothing is done because the resources are not there to follow through.

So reality is that Internet child pornography and exploitation is growing more rampant, more horrific, and more sophisticated. The Cyber Crimes Unit employees know all too well how daunting their job is. We owe it to these dedicated men and women to give them all the resources we can. This additional $5 million will make a meaningful difference.

The appropriations bill, while an increase over the President's request, essentially has flat funded this program. I thank the committee for their continued commitment, and I know we have to make some tough decisions, but this is one we should do for America's children and to stop this horrific crime of child exploitation and pornography over the Internet.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, during a 48-hour period last week, the House Republican majority once again demonstrated why they cannot govern. After weeks of arm twisting and two failed attempts to bring up a budget, the Republican leadership finally forced a vote late last Wednesday. Democrats stood united against the budget. Republicans were forcing major cuts in education, veterans, health and environmental programs. Also, they would continue to shower millionaires with tax breaks.

Nevertheless, the Republican budget passed. Two days later, they saw the implications of that vote when a small group of House Republicans stripped $50 million out of the military construction and veterans appropriations bill because the funding did not fit into the budget that they passed 2 days before.

House Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. They are the ones who continue to put the needs of the wealthiest few above the needs of our veterans, our military personnel, our children and our environment.

The sad fact is that what America witnessed last Friday afternoon will be repeated over and over again here on the House floor until Republicans finally realize that their fiscal policies are out of sync with this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, beginning in fiscal year 2005, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and Budget began implementing new guidelines for including in their budget for operation and maintenance dredging of commercial harbors. Unfortunately, this new policy significantly limits dredging of harbors in rural communities including several communities in my northern Michigan district.

In fiscal year 2006, the corps excluded harbors that moved less than a million tons of cargo each year. For fiscal year 2007, the corps is using a similar tonnage base standard, requiring that dredging projects cost less than $2 per ton of product moved annually.

By using a standard based on tonnage, harbors that do not move a large amount of tonnage but are still important to the economic success of rural areas are excluded from the President's budget. As a result, a number of routine Army Corps harbor dredging projects across the country will not be carried out.

In fiscal year 2006, there were 293 harbors in the United States classified as low use. These harbors were not included in the corps budget, even though they have been in previous years, simply because of this unfair budget standard; 293 communities are impacted by this devastating new policy. An example of how this policy affects communities in my district, Ontonagan, Michigan, residents were taken by surprise when last year, for the first time in many years, the harbor was not included in the President's budget. Not dredging this harbor will have significant effect on the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone deliveries. White pine power, a revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries for power generation in an area that is underserved with electricity will also be jeopardized.

In addition, annual dredging helps prevent flooding in Ontonagon, helping to prevent the devastating private property loss and damage.

While this port does not meet the corps' new standard, dredging plays an essential role in preserving the economy, electric generation and protecting this community; 293 communities in the United States have similar concerns.

This policy is not just detrimental to these rural communities. In setting this policy, the corps also disregards the fact that approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either starts or finishes at small ports. By ignoring the needs of these communities, the corps is also significantly harming the Nation's economy.

The House is on record that the corps' neglect of our rural harbors is unwise and unreasonable. During consideration of the Water Resources Development Act last July, my amendment to require the corps to fund harbor dredging projects based on standards used in fiscal year 2004 was included in the WRDA bill. While the WRDA bill is unfortunately being held up in the Senate, this policy continues to threaten the economies of those cities that depend on these ports.

Therefore, if I may enter into a brief colloquy with the chairman, does the chairman of the subcommittee share my concerns that the corps' new dredging policy is misguided and harms our rural economies?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, with that regard I will be withdrawing my amendment. I would also thank both the chairman, Mr. Hobson, and the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for their support on this issue. Hopefully, we will be able to pass a WRDA bill and go to conference and have it pass this year so the language that we are looking for will be included. I look

forward to working with the committee and these gentlemen on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment based upon the colloquy and comments here today.

Mr. Speaker, last week I could not be present for votes on May 17-19 due to my son's graduation from a California law school.

If I had been present on May 17, I would have voted ``no'' on amendments to the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, H.R. 4200 (rollcall votes 147, 148, 149, and 150). As a cosponsor of H.R. 4200, I would have voted ``yes'' on final passage of the bill (rollcall vote 151).

I would have voted ``no'' on the Marshall Rule to consider the budget (rollcall vote 152), ``no'' on the previous question (rollcall vote 153), and ``no'' on the rule to consider the Republican budget (rollcall vote 154). I would have voted ``no'' on the Watt Substitute (rollcall vote 155).

On May 18, I would have voted ``no'' on the Hensarling Substitute (rollcall vote 156).

I would have voted ``yes'' on the Spratt Democratic Substitute, which would have accumulated smaller deficits and less debt than the Republican budget, provided $6.5 billion more for Homeland Security and $8.6 billion more for veterans' health care over the next five years. In addition the substitute, would have provided $150 billion for middle class tax relief such as child tax credit, marriage penalty, and extension of 10% tax bracket (rollcall vote 157).

I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of the irresponsible Republican budget, which passed 218-210 (rollcall vote 158).

I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 740, calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Pat Finucane (rollcall vote 159).

I would have voted against the previous question and rule to consider the Interior Appropriations bill (rollcall votes 160 and 161).

I would have voted for H. Res. 795, which condemns the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt (rollcall vote 162).

I would have voted for the Weiner Amendment to reopen the Statue of Liberty to the public, which passed 266-152 (rollcall vote 163). I would have voted ``no'' on the Poe Amendment to open the outer continental shelf to oil and natural gas drilling (rollcall vote 164). I would have voted for the Pallone Amendment to prohibit the EPA from finalizing changes to the Toxins Release Inventory, which collects and reports information on toxic substances (rollcall vote 165). I would have voted ``no'' on the Beauprez Amendment (rollcall vote 166). I would have voted ``yes'' on the Hinchey Amendment, which would require that any new leases for offshore oil and gas drilling include royalty payments if the price of oil or gas is over a certain threshold (rollcall vote 167).

I would have voted against the Chabot Amendment, which would prohibit funds for new logging roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska (rollcall vote 168).

I would have voted for the Oberstar Amendment to prohibit the EPA from enforcing guidelines set 3 years ago that significantly limit the applicability of the Clean Water Act to streams, ponds, and wetlands (rollcall vote 169).

I would have voted ``yes'' on the Putnam/Capps amendment to reinstate the bipartisan moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (rollcall vote 170).

I would have voted ``no'' on the Hefley Amendment, which would provide a one percent across-the-board cut to all programs funded in the Interior Appropriations bill (rollcall vote 171).

I would have voted for final passage of the Interior Appropriations bill given the significant improvements made to the bill by the passage of the Hinchey, Oberstar, and Putnam/Capps amendments (rollcall vote 172).

On May 19, I would have voted ``no'' on the Previous Question and passage of the rule for consideration of the Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill (rollcall votes 173 and 174). I would have voted ``no'' on the Blumenauer Amendment which would have cut $440 million from the BRAC Base Closure account (rollcall vote 175).

I would have voted for final passage of the Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill (rollcall vote 176).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to the 850,000 police officers who go to work in our communities each day, and to pay tribute to the more than 17,000 who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and whose names are inscribed on th National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

As a former officer with the Michigan State Police and Escanaba City Police Department, as well as founder and co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution, and I want to thank Congressman Hefley for introducing it again this year.

Everyday, our Nation's police officers face danger and uncertainty in order to keep us safe. There are 56,000 assaults against law enforcement officers each year; and last year, 155 peace officers were killed in the line of duty, including five from my own state of Michigan. They leave behind husbands, wives, parents, and children, who supported them and believed in their work, and who now need and deserve our support.

I want to take a moment to thank organizations like Concerns of Police Survivors and Thin Blue Line that work to help give a voice and a helping hand to the families of officers who are killed. These compassionate organizations help to remind us that the law enforcement community goes beyond those who wear the uniform to include the families who share the risks that come with a career in police work. The ceremonies of this past weekend are for them, to commemorate their commitment and their sacrice, and to let them know that their Nation shares their loss and that their loved ones did not die in vain.

I also think that we need to go beyond the usual gestures to offer the families of fallen officers real, material support. We need to fully fund critical law enforcement programs like the Byrne Grant program, which was named for a fallen officer and which has helped to provide vital funding for organizations like Thin Blue Line. This program has been under attack by the administration in recent years, and I call on my colleagues to show the familes and officers gathered here this week that we mean to support them with our resources as well as our words.

In addition, I am especially proud to have introduced a piece of legislation that will provide health insurance coverage to the survivors of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty. This bill, H.R. 4424, has been endorsed by leading national law enforcement organizations, and will help to relieve the financial strain on police survivors in the wake of the most traumatic possible loss. I think this legislation is an example of the kind of practical support that we can provide to law enforcement officers and their families, and I hope to see it move forward in the coming year.

After September 11, this Congress seemed to recognize the heroic nature of the work that our law enforcement officers do, and the importance of supporting them fully. However, I

am concerned that we have begun to lose sight of our priorities in recent years. Funding for essential programs like COPS has been declining, and even highly successful programs like the Byrne Grant are being threatened with elimination. I believe that we need to go back to the model that helped to radically reduce crime across this country in the Clinton years: funding to put cops on the streets, support for succesful local programs, and federal commitment to initiatives, like communications interoperability, that help to make our first responders more effective.

This week should serve as a chance for us to renew our commitment to the men and women of the law enforcement community. Today, we have the chance to honor them with our words, through the excellent resolution that Mr. Hefley has introduced. For the rest of the year, let's make sure that we are honoring and supporting them through our priorities and our actions. It is the least we can do for the officers and families who do so much for us every day.