Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, congressional Republicans unveiled their own Social Security privatization plan last week, stating repeatedly that their proposal would protect the Social Security trust fund.

It is an interesting comment considering the fact that Republicans have raided $670 billion from the Social Security trust fund over the last 4 years alone to help pay for their giant tax breaks for the wealthiest elite. The majority party seems to forget that during the Clinton years, we ensured Social Security trust funds were locked away so they could not be used by the

Federal Government. That quickly changed after President Bush came to town, and now congressional Republicans are being disingenuous by attempting to sell their Social Security proposal as a way to prevent the trust fund from being raided in the future.

Republicans are simply misrepresenting their proposal. When asked last week how the government would fund the programs now being funded by the Social Security trust fund money, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), Social Security Subcommittee chairman, said that the cash can still be used the way it is now. In other words, despite their rhetoric, Republicans would continue to raid the Social Security trust fund.

Americans should not be fooled by this latest privatization proposal. If the President and Republicans are serious about saving Social Security, let us pay back what we owe on Social Security now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Paul Blewett, a public school teacher who has served the young people of the Bark River Harris School District in Michigan's Upper Peninsula for the past 42\1/2\ years and has made a significant contribution to his professional organization.

Paul Blewett was born in Ishpeming, Michigan on January 21, 1940 to the late Fred and Evelyn Blewett. He graduated from Ishpeming High School in 1958 and received his BA and Masters Degree from Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan. After being awarded his Professional Teaching Certificate in 1963, he entered the challenging and rewarding field of teaching in the Bark River Harris Public School System in Bark River in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Mr. Blewett's first position at Bark River Harris Schools began a very long and successful career and a true commitment to his community. Mr. Blewett taught Algebra I and II, General Math, Geometry, and Advance Mathematics for over 42 years to students in the Bark River Harris High School along with being the driver education instructor for 40 of those years. Paul made a commitment to his students in the classroom and to their activities outside of the regular classroom. They respected him as a teacher and appreciated the guidance and counseling that he provided.

Aside from his full time teaching responsibilities, Mr. Blewett also made a major commitment to his professional organization and contributed to the development and the building of the Michigan Education Association as one of the leading professional education organizations in the nation. Mr. Blewett was recognized by his colleagues for his talent, hard work and willingness to participate because they elected him to serve as the local Education Association President, Negotiator, Regional Council President, President and Treasurer of the Upper Peninsula Education Association, a member of the Board of Directors for the Michigan Education Association for thirteen years, a delegate to National Education Association Representative Assembly and a delegate to the State Representative Assembly for 30 years. He was also involved in the Political Action Committee of the Michigan Education Association. While doing all of this, Mr. Blewett held many other roles within his professional educational organization.

With so much time contributed to his teaching, community and professional development, Mr. Blewett extended family was his students and colleagues until he met a lovely nurse from Wisconsin. In April of 2003 he married Vera and gained a wonderful stepson, Lyndon. Mr. Blewett made time to pursue his love for photography. As a special project, he made a photographic record of many events in school to capture current student life with the intent of preserving history. In addition to exploring his craft through creative means, his natural talent made him in-demand for weddings and social events.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to say ``Thank You'' and recognize this teacher for his dedication to his students and his professional involvement with the Michigan Education Association at all levels of responsibilities. Paul's involvement in public education and his professional organization made a difference in the delivery and development of public education for the Upper Peninsula and the State of Michigan. We thank Paul for his commitment, his friendship and we wish him and his wife Vera the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a historic symbol of exploration and commerce in my district. On Friday, June 24th the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan will kick-off a summer of activities to honor the 150th Anniversary of the Soo Locks.

Hundreds of years ago settlers established the oldest city in Michigan and third oldest in the United States, Sault Ste. Marie, named by French explorer Father Jacques Marquette in honor of the Virgin Mary. The area, rich with fur trading and fishing, was difficult to travel by water because of the rapids or ``Bawating'' as referred to by the local Anishnabe Native American Tribe. As a voyager entered the St. Mary's River to sail from Lake Superior to Lake Huron the rapids dropped 21 feet and was too treacherous to traverse. Voyagers, explorers and tradesman were forced to portage their canoes, unloading and reloading their cargo via the land trail along side the rapids to complete their travels.

The Northwest Fur Company engineered the first locks on the Canadian side of Sault Ste. Marie in the late 1700's. The system involved moving a ship into a chamber of water,

or a lock, and then raise or lower the water level to be even with the body of water they wished to traverse. This first set of locks was unfortunately destroyed in the War of 1812 and travelers were once again forced to carry their cargo by land. The present day lock system, mimicking the original design, was developed by civil engineers in 1850.

In 1852, Congress offered a large public land deal as payment to any company that would construct the new lock designed to continue commerce between the lakes. The Fairbanks Scale Company agreed to the proposal in 1853 because of its mining interests in the Upper Peninsula. On May 31st 1855, two 350 foot long locks were given to the State of Michigan. The State instituted a small toll in the early years of the lock for maintenance but in 1877, when commerce exceeded the capability of the locks, the State recognized that a new set of locks was necessary.

In 1881, the locks were transferred to the Federal government under the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers. Since that time, the Soo Locks have operated toll-free with two canals and fours locks that included the Davis, Poe, MacArther and Sabin locks.

The value of the Soo Locks was never fully appreciated until World War 11. As the United States was attacked, it became necessary for America to build the ``arsenal of democracy''. To build the world's arsenal, America needed steel for its ships, guns, tanks and vehicles. In order to make that steel, America needed to mine the iron ore rich regions of Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The only practical way to move the massive volume and weight of iron ore was by ship from Lake Superior, through the Soo Locks, down the St. Mary's River and out to Lake Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Erie to the steel mills of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois.

As the war's demand for iron ore was at its greatest, Congress authorized a new Soo Lock capable of handling the 640 foot ships loaded with up to 17,500 tons of iron ore during the 1942 Maritime Class. America worked around the clock to build the new lock to hold the iron ore boats that stoked the war machine.

With the end of World War II, the importance of the Soo Locks did not diminish. As trade and steel demand increased a new even larger lock was needed. In 1965, Congress authorized a new 1000 foot Super Lock. As with all the locks, the new lock was named after the engineer in charge of the Soo Lock, General Orlando M. Poe, also known for his eight lighthouses that grace Michigan's waterways.

The Poe Lock is the largest lock in the Western Hemisphere and the busiest lock in the world. Each year, 80 to 90 million tons of freight move through the Soo Locks. Still today, more than 70 percent of the raw materials needed to make steel pass through the locks, as does low sulfur coal and grain exports. The Great Lakes shipping industry helps sustain thousands of jobs in mining, construction, steel making and a multitude of support industries. In fact, shipping is so important to our economy that just one 1000 foot ore boat can deliver enough iron ore to build 60,000 cars.

Currently, \2/3\ of all freight is restricted to the 32 year-old Poe lock, which is the only lock capable of handling 1000 foot ore boats. Without this lock, the steel, coal and grain industries would be helpless. Recognizing this, Congress authorized construction of another ``Poe'' size lock in 1986. Over the last eight years, I have been proud to secure funding for preconstruction, planning, engineering and design for the new lock. Since 2003 alone, over $10 million have been secured toward the construction of this new lock. I am pleased that the States of Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania recognize the economic importance of this additional lock by contributing their non-Federal cost shares to the project and encourage the other Great Lakes States to join us in securing the necessary funding to build this new lock.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the historic engineering marvel we call the Soo Locks as they celebrate 150 years of exploration, commerce and trade. This engineering wonder has provided a proud past of innovation to evolve into the critical link to deliver the arsenal of democracy during world wars and the economic feasibility for the steel, coal and grain industries now and into the future, From the Anishnabe Tribe of Native Americans to the men and women who first explored, built and operated the locks; to the City of Sault Ste. Marie and her people; to a Nation at war; to tomorrow's commerce that flows to and from Lake Superior to the other four Great Lakes; the Soo Lock have withstood the test of time by meeting the demands of a great Nation, to traverse the ``rapids'' of history always opening its lock to a brighter future for America. Once again with the help of the United States Congress, I hope to continue the legacy of the Soo Locks by providing the resources to build another super lock that will ensure another successful 150 years of waterborne commerce by and through the Soo Locks located at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the dedication of a small town public library that was once a vision for a better place to learn and discover. The vision became a dream and today the vision is a reality. It can best be described through the words of the American Writer Normal Cousins--``a library, to modify the famous metaphor of Socrates, should be the delivery room for the birth of ideas--a place where history comes to life''. On June 18th, 2005, the City of St. Ignace, Michigan will dedicate their new library that will serve as the central location to explore historic knowledge, current cultural awareness and unlock future technological advancements.

To fully embrace the significance of the work and commitment that went into the completion of this new library, we must understand the humble beginnings of the original public library in St. Ignace. In 1924, the first library began as a Civil League Library in the old City Hall comprised of only 100 books donated by the local League. For a short time following, the books were transferred to the LaSalle High School Library. However, upon the completion of the new Municipal Building in 1940, the Civic League was given a new home for their growing collection of over 1,000 volumes.

The League understood that if the library was to continue to grow at the successful rate it had been, they would need an oversight group to maintain the collected works, so they established a Library Board in 1944. Within a short 10 year period, the library had 4,000 volumes and a circulation of 10,000. In 1969, when the Civil League dissolved, the Library Board continued on with a new mission of creating a building to permanently house their library resources.

Fourteen years later, in 1983, the 10,000 volume collection moved out of City Hall and into the Spring Street building where it would

stay until 2005. In 1993 the library received its first computer and one year later began providing Internet access. Today, the St. Ignace Public Library has a circulation of over 22,000 books, videos, audio books, and CD-ROMS and has access to six computers.

The library informs me that over the past 10 years they have watched their ciruculation grow by 57 percent. They have issued roughly 2,000 library cards. Between the influx of people and learning materials, their 2,600 square foot building could hardly keep up with the growth. The new library, being dedicated this Saturday, is 6,600 square feet and contains a larger children's section and expanded computer facilities. In addition, the library will contain a community room for programs, lectures and public use making this library today's new town square that will bring families together to share, learn and grow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the St. Ignace Library Board, Funding and Building Committee and Steering committee for continuing the strong legacy of growth for the library and the vision to see it through. This nearly $1.5 million structure took many partners to accomplish. This was financed through private donations, foundations and state and federal grants as well as in-kind support went into making this happen. I was happy to be able to earmark two grants in the federal appropriations process for $175,000 and $225,000 to help the vision of this amazing project go from dream to reality.

Just as the City of St. Ignace is the northern home to the Mackinac Bridge that connects to our neighbors in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, this library bridges and connects to neighbors next door and across the globe. Local residents now have the opportunity to connect with their neighbors through learning and activities while also connecting to those around the world through better access to technology. I applaud the St. Ignace community for their commitment to this great accomplishment that is clearly bridging them to the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey amendment. This amendment would restore crucial funding for State and local law enforcement back to the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.

This bill cuts the funding for these programs by $410 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, and the 2005 enacted level was already $226 million less than was provided the year before that. So in 2 years, we have cut $636 million from law enforcement programs. How long are we going to continue on this downward slope of funding for our critical law enforcement programs?

The Obey amendment would restore funding for the Byrne-JAG program and COPS, Community-Oriented Policing Services program. The COPS program has been highly successful and provides funding for our local and State agencies that they need to hire and train new police officers.

According to the Department of Justice, every dollar we invest in the COPS program contributes to a decline in 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents. As a former city police officer and a Michigan State Trooper, as well as cochair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand how much our local communities need and rely on the Byrne grants and COP grants to keep these successful programs going in their neighborhoods.

The Byrne-JAG grants provide funding for 29 different and vital programs such as antidrug education programs, treatment programs, and alternative sentencing initiatives, giving the States the ability to choose which programs they find most beneficial in their State to do under this Federal funding.

As most of us know and we hear when we go back home to our local districts, the Byrne grants fund the local drug enforcement teams. We have to provide this funding so our drug enforcement officers can do their jobs. We must listen to what our drug enforcement officers are telling us and fully fund the Byrne grant program.

Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities safe and drug free. If Byrne grants are funded at the level currently provided in this bill, our teams will be unable to hire the officers they need to sustain their drug enforcement teams. In my home State of Michigan, we would lose 11 of the 25 teams we have in Michigan. California would lose 26 teams. Texas would lose 21 drug enforcement teams. New York would lose 34 drug enforcement teams.

Losing these drug enforcement teams would have a devastating and far- reaching effect not only in Michigan but throughout this country, especially in our rural communities. Let me be really clear. When it comes to crime and drug abuse and drug dealers, no community, urban or rural, is immune to this problem.

Congress needs to step up to the plate and show their strong commitment to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Today we have a chance to do that by voting for the Obey amendment and showing our support for law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe and drug free. I urge support of the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Terry for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues, as a co-sponsor and advocate of our amendment to restore funding to the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, program in the Science-State appropriations bill. If, we, as the House, do not pass the Obey amendment, then we must pass the Terry amendment--even though it may hurt some programs, we all support.

Unfortunately, this program is grossly underfunded in the bill-- cutting funding from the $634 million that was provided in fiscal year 2005 to only $348 million in fiscal year 2006--a 45-percent cut. Our amendment restores $286 million to Byrne, which will put the funding back to last year's level.

If we do not restore this funding now, it will only be a matter of time before this program is completely wiped out.

As a former Escanaba city police officer and Michigan State trooper as well as co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand how much our local communities need and rely on the Byrne grants program monies.

Byrne grants provide funding for 29 vital programs such as anti-drug education programs, treatment programs and alternative sentencing initiatives, giving the States the ability to choose the programs where this Federal funding would be most beneficial to law enforcement issues faced in their State.

Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities drug free. Without our amendment, our teams will not have the funding to hire the officers they need to sustain their drug enforcement teams. In my home State of Michigan, we would lose 11 of our 25 task forces. California will lose 26 of 58, Texas will lose 21 of 46 and New York will lose 34 of 76.

Fighting the war on drugs must be an inter-jurisdictional, unified effort between local, county, and State police working together. Without the necessary Federal funding, this coordination will not be possible because our local task forces will no longer be in existence.

Losing these task forces is a frightening thought considering that 90 percent of drug arrests nationwide are made by State and local law enforcement agencies.

This would have a devastating and far reaching effect in Michigan-- especially on our rural communities. Let me be clear--when it comes to drug abuse, no community--urban or rural--is immune to this problem.

Congress needs to step up to the plate and show their strong commitment to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They have that chance today by voting for our amendment and showing their support for law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe and drug free.

Mr. Speaker, I come here tonight concerned about drug safety and to speak out to protect our children from the acne drug Accutane. As a legislator, I have called for more restrictions on the distribution and use of this drug, which is known to cause severe birth defects and a form of impulsive behavior and depression in patients taking this drug.

This drug has devastated my family with the loss of our son BJ and more than 268 other families who have lost their young son or daughter while he or she was taking Accutane.

News stories persist concerning the safety of our prescription drugs. When an FDA safety reviewer, Dr. David Graham, testified before the Senate Finance Committee this past winter, he stated, ``I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx.'' He went on to tell the Senate Finance Committee that ``there are at least five other drugs on the market today that should be looked at seriously to see whether they should remain on the market.'' He cited the acne drug Accutane.

Why Accutane? Accutane is the poster child for why we need an independent body to approve and review drug safety. Accutane causes horrendous birth defects and may cause psychiatric disorders such as depression and suicide. It is linked to over 268 suicides, according to the FDA.

A recent study here by Dr. J. Douglas Bremner demonstrates how Accutane affects the brain, possibly causing impulsive behavior due to changes in the orbitofrontal cortex. This is the front part of the brain. This is an area known to cause or mediate depression.

As Dr. Bremner showed us in his study of the brain, there is a decrease in the metabolism of the brain. This chart here is of two PET scans of the same person's brain. The PET scan on your left establishes a baseline for the person before they took Accutane.

Now look at the second PET scan of the same person after 4 months on Accutane. Notice in the first scan before the Accutane the color red representing brain activity in the front part of the brain.

Now, on the second PET scan, the post-Accutane one, notice very little red, representing decreased brain activity in the same person after 4 months on Accutane therapy. Accutane decreases the metabolism in the front part of the brain, the area we know that mediates depression.

Dr. Bremner has concluded that this one patient here, there is a 21 percent decrease in brain metabolism in this patient. This change in the brain only occurred in Accutane patients.

Dr. Bremner performed PET scans on other non-Accutane patients who were taking a different oral antibiotic for acne. None of these patients experienced any brain changes.

Dr. Bremner also found that one-half of his Accutane patients in this study experienced a brain change, those who complained of severe headaches. Is it the excessive dosage found in the current formula of Accutane that is the cause of the change in the brain that we see in this PET scan?

The medical evidence is clear that Accutane causes changes in the brain, and this may be what leads some people to take their lives.

Let us join with Dr. Graham, the Centers for Disease Control, and other health care groups that have expressed strong concerns about the safety of this drug and who have called for Accutane to be withdrawn from the market as far back as 1990.

Let us pull Accutane from the market at least until we have all the answers surrounding this powerful drug. At the very least, the FDA should immediately require a large-scale review and study on the drug's effects on the brain.

Is this change of metabolism we see, that we see here, is it reversible? Will the brain repair itself? What amount or what dose of Accutane is safe? What amount or what dose of Accutane can be safely taken so the human brain is not affected? Has the FDA done enough to protect the American people, especially our young people, from the side effects of Accutane? Has the FDA seriously looked at Dr. Bremner's study and similar studies in animal testing, all of which demonstrate Accutane affects the brain?

It is time to protect our children. It is time to withdraw this drug, Accutane, from the market until all of our important safety questions are fully and completely answered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for asking me to come down and speak with him and speak out against the Central America Free Trade Agreement called CAFTA. I am pleased to be here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), all from the great State of Ohio. As we continue to look at just your map there, the job loss is 216,000 in Ohio, 210 in Michigan.

Just one slight correction, if I may, on your map. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan still belongs to Michigan, not to Wisconsin. But anyone saw me down here arguing this from my district and knowing that I live in the Upper Peninsula, they would say, whoa, what happened here?

But, you know, if CAFTA passes, there might as well not be an Upper Peninsula of Michigan just because we have lost so much. In fact, Michigan, right now our unemployment remains the highest in the State at about 7 percent. The small and the medium-sized manufacturing jobs are gone. We just have great difficulty with it.

One industry we still have left in Michigan, and a little bit that it is, but it is vitally important, a new part of my district down there by the thumb area, as we call it, is the sugar industry. And CAFTA will just really wipe out the sugar industry in Michigan.

We recently just have been declared a disaster area because of higher than normal temperatures in the region, where we lost 200,000 tons of sugar. That cost $33 million to our farmers. But now if we pass this trade agreement, and if it goes into effect, U.S. markets will be flooded with sugar imports, striking an even greater blow to our Michigan economy, especially our agriculture and sugar. And sugar actually ranks fourth in the country in production, Michigan sugar does. So we have a vital stake in the sugar industry in this Nation, being fourth in the country in production.

And our sugar comes from sugar beet. And the sugar beet economy in Michigan, if you will, is about 2000 farms, employs thousands of people, and annually it is a $300 million product to agriculture in Michigan. Michigan farmers know how damaging CAFTA would be to them. We will also endanger many of the thousands of jobs at the mid-Michigan- based Michigan Sugar Company. That is a cooperative, and they have worked very hard to maintain their jobs. And if CAFTA goes through, we think the Michigan Sugar Company would be history.

We in Congress we need to send a strong signal to the Bush administration that this is one instance where sugar, if you will, does not belong on the table, so to speak.

What can we expect from CAFTA? And I know all my colleagues here joined me in that fight in NAFTA about some 10 years ago. A significant job loss. Over the past 10 years we have 766,000 jobs lost here in the United States. And where did they go? They went to Mexico and other places for lower wages and labor standards that are appealing to big corporations.

How many more American jobs can we afford to lose as a result of CAFTA? Why would CAFTA, under the same labor and environmental framework as NAFTA, be anything better for our manufacturing industry, our sugar industry or the American worker?

CAFTA would allow foreign corporations to challenge U.S. environmental laws once again by establishing a three-member panel of international judges who meet behind closed doors with the power to award billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers to multinational corporations.

CAFTA's environmental provision is a sham. The agreement says that nations would simply enforce existing environmental laws, even though many of those laws are inadequate. Even that provision, the environmental provision, even that one fails to have a meaningful enforcement mechanism. CAFTA does not ask other nations to better preserve or protect their environments. It just says whatever laws you have is fine.

In the U.S. we have many environmental laws to protect our food, other residents, our natural resources. Yet if CAFTA passes, we will import goods from countries that do not have the same safety standards.

We all know about the food. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has helped on the Energy and Commerce Committee where we both sit on food safety issues, whether it is tomatoes out of Mexico versus Florida tomatoes. In this country we still, we pass every year a labeling law to label our food. So we could say, okay, these tomatoes are from Florida. We know what standards they are grown by. These are from Mexico. We do not know what standards they are grown by. We pass it, but yet it is never implemented by the current administration. People are willing to pay a few extra pennies, if you will, on their fruits or vegetables or beets or seafood just to know where it comes from, because our standards, our environmental standards, our consumer standards, our health standards, our safety standards are so much greater in this country than elsewhere.

So CAFTA, in a way, wipes out all these protections for the American worker, for the American homeowner, for our American family. CAFTA also fails to protect Americans workers. It fails to offer protections to Central American workers who fall victim to their country's own diminishing standards.

CAFTA does have its benefits. The only benefits I can find are to companies that would leave the U.S. to exploit cheap labor in countries with minimal protections. We need to be promoting business development and jobs in the U.S., not sending more of them overseas.

Michigan, as I said, has lost, and on the gentleman from Ohio's chart there, 210,000 manufacturing jobs. Just since NAFTA alone, we can draw a direct line between NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and 130,000 manufacturing jobs, just manufacturing jobs in Michigan. Companies are practically crawling all over one another to leave the U.S. for cheap labor in countries with little protection for their workers or the environment.

Now I want to be clear, and I am sure all of us here tonight, we support fair trade agreements; however, CAFTA is unfair at its worst. It is unfair to workers both at home and in Central America. It is unfair to small businesses. It is unfair to our communities, unfair to our environment. So I would urge the administration and this Congress to stop the exodus of jobs from the U.S., stop the challenges to our environmental protection laws.

And when I came down here tonight to join you, you were talking a little bit about what about a faith base or a moral basis for some of these agreements, especially here in the United States. When you take a look at the United States Catholic Conference and the United States Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Relief Services have all come out opposing this trade agreement on basic fundamental human rights issues. Trade is all about people, their livelihood and how they live their lives. And they found CAFTA, you know, Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, they found that CAFTA is a trade investment agreement negotiated between the United States and six countries, and they are, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic. And the President wants us to pass this trade agreement. But before we go ahead and do it, just from a moral and faith-based perspective, we have to ask questions like how will CAFTA address the needs of small and medium-sized manufacturing and farms here in the United States and Central America?

How will CAFTA protect the rights of worker and the environment?

How will CAFTA impact the lives of people throughout this hemisphere, be it U.S. and Central America?

What is the intellectual property provisions for protection of your intellectual property? What does CAFTA have? Very little.

What is CAFTA's purpose, or how does CAFTA promote really human development and human rights, especially amongst poor people in Central America?

If you start asking these questions, it is very clear this trade agreement is not negotiated in the best interests of the American people. It is not negotiated in the best interests of faith-based people. It is not negotiated in the best interests of people who come to this floor or go to work every day with a moral purpose of what they do.

I have always been taught you work hard, you play by the rules, and good things will happen. Unfortunately, with these trade agreements, you work hard, you play by the rules, not only do you lose your job, but your job is shipped overseas, and it is sort of a race to the bottom, because the job you had before, now you earn so much less when you try to pick up a new job because there is just not the jobs there.

I mentioned Michigan at about 7 percent unemployment. A month or two ago it was 7.5 percent. The tourism industry is starting to take off, so we are starting to see a little bit of an improvement in our economy, but still at 7 percent. We just cannot. The auto industry is hurting terribly in this Nation, and as we ship more and more jobs south to produce more and more cars, to produce our sugar, to produce our meats, our vegetables, our fruits, what is left for the farmers?

And you cannot tell me these farmers in Central America are making the money. They really are going to be squeezed. The small and medium- sized farmers will be squeezed out in these countries as the big international conglomerates will take over, and they will reap the profits, and these people will continue to live in poverty and in misery.

So when the United States Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Relief Services come out against a trade agreement because they do not believe it will do anything to lift the workers, the farmers, the peasants out of poverty in Central America, at the expense of U.S. jobs, that is a strong statement.

So I would hope people would take a very close look at CAFTA. Take a look at it from just your own job in our own district. Take a look what is does to the United States. But take a look at it from a moral and ethical perspective and say, is this the kind of trade agreement I can honestly vote for and go to church this Sunday and say, you know, I did the right thing?

I think when we examine the questions put forth by all of you here tonight, I think the American people would agree that this CAFTA is just a bad deal not just for U.S. sugar, but for all of the United States and all of our manufacturing, and does nothing to help the people it professes to help in the Central America region of this hemisphere.

So I would hope that people would not support this agreement. There is a lot of pressure being applied by the White House right now. There are meetings going on all the time. There is actually a picnic this Wednesday at the White House. I am sure they will be asking Members there in between their enjoyment to vote for this trade agreement. The President has sort of staked part of his administration upon it, and I hope we would see through all this and see what is done to our Nation, all these trade agreements that are really unfair. Again, not against trade agreements, but they have to be fair to both countries, to all the countries involved, and they have to be enforceable, and we are just not enforcing it.

I mentioned the intellectual property rights. We have had hearings in our committee on China where they just openly are manufacturing these games that we see that young people play, whether it is their Gameboy or all of these video games, openly doing it in front of the Chinese officials. And they say, yeah, but they will not crack down on it. The intellectual property rights. The movies. The intellectual property rights is one of the last few industries we have left in this country where we have world supremacy on it, but yet we cannot get countries like China to enforce it, to protect it, even though it is part of all these trade agreements. It is just amazing. It is just simply amazing that we have these trade agreements we know are being violated, nothing is being done.

Let us not do another trade agreement, this one being the Central America Free Trade Agreement, that is going to harm us not just from an agricultural point of view and manufacturing point of view, but even our intellectual property rights. If they cannot protect something like a video game, how are they going to protect your best interest when it comes down to these trade agreements? So I would hope that this House would reject this CAFTA. And remember, it is an agreement, and when it comes to the floor we cannot amend it, we cannot change it, we cannot alter it. It is either a yes or no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for yielding and thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

We have had this issue a couple of times come before the Congress, and each time we have been pretty successful in trying to defeat the changes and the cuts in the appropriations to the Byrne grants because, as all my colleagues know, the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants are of great importance to all of our States, to our local, our city police, especially in the fight against drugs because of the drug task force that they do fund.

Our law enforcement officers who are in our communities who serve and protect us every day have asked repeatedly that we not cut this one vital program, which gives them discretion at the State level on where to put these justice grants, these Byrne grants, if you will, and how to use them in their States.

Unfortunately, this program is grossly underfunded in the bill that we will have up this week, and it is going to cut funding from $634 million that was provided last year to $348 million for this fiscal year. That is about a 40, 45 percent cut.

So, tomorrow, I look forward to joining with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstead), my other co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, and others to offer this important amendment.

Our amendment will ensure that our local law enforcement has the resources it needs to control and eliminate drug threats, keep our court systems up and running smoothly and provide funding for anti- terrorism training. As a former city police officer and a Michigan State police trooper, as well as the co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand how much our local communities need and rely upon the Byrne grants. In fact, we had hearings in the Law Enforcement Caucus earlier this year about what these Byrne grant cuts would mean to law enforcement, and law enforcement from Maryland, Illinois and all over the country came and testified the devastating effect it would have.

So what our amendment would do to tomorrow is restore the $286 million that is being cut out of the Byrne grants by making a .448 percent cut, that is less than a half a percent, from every agency in this bill to fully fund Byrne grants. Why should every agency take a hit? Because this is how important the Byrne grants are to law enforcement and our continuing fight against drugs in this country.

So I am hopeful that the entire House of Representatives will take to heart the importance of the funding of the Byrne grant program and vote for this amendment.

Most of us are well aware that the funding this grant provides is instrumental to our law enforcement teams, but this Byrne grant does so much more that is often overlooked.

In fact, the Byrne grants actually provide funding for 29 different programs, vital programs such as anti-drug education programs, treatment programs, alternative sentencing initiatives, giving the States the ability to choose the programs where funding would be most useful to them back at home.

The Byrne grants also fund programs important to our court and prison systems. It provides funding to improve the operational effectiveness of the court process by expanding judicial resources and implementing court-delay reduction programs such as automated fingerprint identification systems.

The Byrne grants provide long-range corrections and sentencing strategies and fund programs that teach inmates to acquire marketable skills and to make restitution payments to their victims.

Byrne grants can also be used to implement antiterrorism training programs, enforce child abuse and neglect laws, improve the criminal justice system's response to domestic and family violence, and, finally, the grants can also be used to establish cooperative programs between law enforcement and the media, such as the AMBER alert system, which we use when there is an abduction or a missing child or young adult. We flash it across the highways, the byways, the TVs, and radios. That is all funded by the Byrne grants. So why would we put a 40, 45 percent cut in that system that we seem to be relying upon, unfortunately, more and more each day?

As most of us have been hearing from our local drug enforcement teams back home, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) certainly articulated those needs, we have to provide the funding so our drug enforcement officers can do their jobs. We can do this only by fully funding the Byrne grants. We have a list we are putting out, and the gentleman from Nebraska has worked on this, and all of us who are supporting this amendment tomorrow. If you look at California, our largest State, it has 58 drug enforcement teams, task forces. If these cuts go through, they will be down to 32. They will lose 26 drug task forces; Georgia, 16; Louisiana, 17; New York will lose 34 of their 76 teams; Ohio will lose 14 of their 32; Texas will lose 21 of the 46 drug enforcement teams; and Wisconsin, my neighboring State, will lose 15 of their 34. Basically, of the 828 drug enforcements teams we have across this Nation, we will lose 373, or 45 percent of them.

So really, if we are to keep our communities safe and drug free, we really have to fund this. Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities drug free. If the Byrne grants are funded at the level currently in the bill, as I said, our teams would not be able to hire the officers they need to sustain drug enforcement teams. In my home State of Michigan, we would lose 11 out of our 25 drug enforcement teams. Losing the task forces would have a devastating and far-reaching effect on Michigan, especially in rural communities like I represent.

Let me be clear. When it comes to drug abuse, no community, urban or rural, in this country is immune from the problem. The methamphetamine problem alone, as the gentleman from Nebraska just spoke of, is destroying families and taking lives in rural America.

To highlight how important these drug enforcement teams are, there was a recent article in one of my little local newspapers in the First Congressional District of Michigan which cites that back 2 months ago, on April 13, HUNT, the Huron Undercover Narcotics Team, HUNT as we call them, seized 3,000 OxyContin tablets from one home in rural Presque County. This critical seizure is just one example of the work our narcotics teams do each and every day to keep our communities safe.

These local agencies, like HUNT, who do so much for our local communities, will take the brunt of the Byrne grant cuts. It is a scary thought, considering that 90 percent of the drug arrests nationwide are made by States and local law enforcement. Ninety percent of all drug arrests are made by local and State. And where do they get the bulk of their money? The Byrne grants.

Our country's drug problems are not going away. In fact, with the emergence of prescription drug use, methamphetamines, and OxyContin, some would argue our problem is only getting worse. So my question is why

would we, as a Congress, cut the funding that enables teams like the HUNT undercover narcotics team to exist and combat this problem that is only becoming more severe?

I know we have other Members who wish to speak, but I am hopeful as Members take to the floor tonight, they will keep in mind and urge their colleagues to support the Terry-Stupak-Ramstad amendment tomorrow to restore the funding to this critical program. Again, we talk about drugs tonight, but there are 29 different programs. It is one of those few programs where we say to the States, here is some money, we want you to do it for law enforcement, and do what is best for your State. We do not mandate it, but here is a pot of money you can take it from, and we hope you do what is best in your State. After all, you know what is best.

The State and Antidrug Task Forces are just one example that we all deal with day in and day out, and I would hope people would support our amendment by cutting less than \1/2\ of 1 percent from the other agencies in this bill to fully fund the Byrne grants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman and thank him once again for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to arguing this amendment with him tomorrow on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman yields to our colleague, may I comment on one point that he brought up, if I may?

If my colleague would be so kind, and I appreciate our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), being down here to work with us on this issue.

These local teams understand they are not just getting Federal money, and the Federal Government is funding the whole thing. Whether it is Presque County or the little city of Escanaba, where I was a police officer, or whether it is the big city of Detroit, the local units of government must put in money. It is a matching grant program. They have to put in resources. So it is a unified effort between local, county, and State police working together, and the seed money is really the Federal Government. Without the seed money, there is no incentive or urging of the county board of commissioners to fund an officer to work on the undercover task force team, because there will not be any.

So it is always a fight every year to keep these teams together and keep them properly funded and staffed with personnel. And if we lose the Federal funding, a 45 percent reduction, the problems that I am sure the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and I have spoken about will only get 45 percent worse within the year. So I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and the Members now with us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment, and I appreciate the effort he has been doing with these last two amendments, and I hope we will continue his work, because the amendment is very important. It will help us put a stop to the conflict of interests which actually weakens the drug approval process.

The FDA advisory committees are charged with ensuring that the medicines our families take are safe and effective.

Current law prohibits conflicts of interest between the members on the advisory committee and the companies whose drug is being examined by the advisory committee.

Though the FDA has the authority to waive this prohibition under certain limited circumstances, this exception has now become the rule, and too often the FDA places scientists with financial connections to the drugs they are examining on the advisory committees.

Conflicts of interest create disastrous consequences. In some cases, one-third of the advisory committee's appointees do part-time consulting work, research or own stock in the companies whose drugs they are considering. Such a committee approved the drug Vioxx. As many as 100,000 people have been injured by taking Vioxx. Had the members of the advisory committee with ties to the industry been removed, Vioxx would not have been approved.

Some will argue and some may argue that scientists with financial connections to the industry may still be unbiased. However, this week an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that senior executives at Merck threatened to damage a Harvard researcher's career if he publicly lectured about the health effects of Vioxx.

In such an environment, where those who are trying to help protect our families are threatened by drug companies, it is inconceivable that advisory committee members can remain unbiased as they examine their part-time employer's drugs. The financial interests are too great, not only for those who sit on the advisory committee, but also the drug companies who produce these drugs, and do whatever they can to get them approved.

We have so much work to do in this area. The Hinchey amendment does not put any new requirements upon the FDA, merely enforces the law as is written; and this Congress should stand up and enforce the law as explained in previous Congresses.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to give patients and doctors the information they deserve about the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs.

My amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure clinical trials that are required to be listed in a public database by law are in fact listed, and it requires those clinical trials to be listed before a drug is approved to be marketed.

My amendment requires nothing of HHS but to enforce the current law. As part of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Congress mandated that a central drug trial database be created to house all clinical trials for all serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions. Three years later, in 2000, clinicaltrials.gov became the online site of the clinical trials data bank. FDA issued guidance on registering their trials in the clinical trials data bank in March of 2002. Two years after the guidance for the industry has been issued, compliance with the law has been dismal at best.

While 80 percent of drug trials are privately conducted, only 13 percent of them are listed on clinicaltrials.gov. FDA analysis from 2002 showed that less than half of all cancer trials are on the FDA Web site. An FDA official last year told The Washington Post that they have seen no ``big increase in the monthly submission of privately sponsored protocols'' since 2002. Drug company compliance has been so lax that last year even the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, assumed the registry was only for federally funded clinical trials.

The reality is that this law is not a lack of understanding, but the law has been ignored by the drug companies. This amendment is simple. Before the FDA can approve a new drug application, the clinical trials must be registered at clinicaltrials.gov first. FDA cannot allow these drug companies to continue to ignore the law. We said in 1997 that the drug companies must share their drug trial information with patients and doctors, especially those with serious injuries and illnesses or life-threatening disease.

This issue is not controversial. Last June, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution calling for a Federal database of clinical trials. The AMA and others are concerned that drug companies emphasize the results of positive tests while playing down

the negative or inconclusive results as they did with Vioxx, Accutane, and the adolescent antidepressant drugs. The New England Journal of Medicine and others require studies to be listed on the Web site before the journals will publish articles about the studies.

This amendment does not create any new duties. This amendment does not expand the database to other drugs. No drugs are going to be denied approval, as long as the trials get listed. It just requires the enforcement of this widely supported, lifesaving law. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, this does not require any new duties, none whatsoever. If the chairman would point that out to me, maybe we could have a discussion about it; but there are no new duties being required here. It does not require the drug companies to do anything different than they were required to do in 1997. They do not have to report the results of the studies. They just have to report it. In addition, it does not mandate posting trials for anything else, because we have limited it more to the serious and life-threatening, exactly what the law said in 1997. We did not expand the scope of it. The FDA simply has to enforce what they are supposed to enforce by law. The FDA has already published several guidelines to drug companies about which drug trials have to be listed, when they have to be listed, and what has to be listed. If they can get them listed, it can be approved. The amendment simply instructs the Secretary of HHS, not FDA but HHS, to ensure compliance. It makes sure one hand of the HHS talks to the other.

When we drafted this amendment, it should be made germane because it concerns the use of funds for carrying out the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and funds for that purpose provided in the bill. As to whether there are those duties, I referred to the Secretary here. I did not refer to anyone else, the same as the 1997 law. We have said ``Secretary'' because it is used in both the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and also the Public Health Service Act, that is, HHS administers both of these acts. Therefore, there is nothing new.

The argument is not that there is a new duty for HHS to check whether clinical trials are registered because the Public Health Service Act section, 402(j), states that the database, and I am using the exact language now, 402(j) of the Public Health Act says, shall include a registry of clinical trials, end of quote, for which investigative and new drugs have been provided.

There is nothing here new. All we are saying is the concepts used in my amendment are used in current law. We use the word ``exemption.'' That is in current law. We use ``registry of clinical trials.'' Current law. We refer to only serious or life-threatening disease or condition. That is current law. There are no new duties here.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, does the Federal Food and Drug Administration and NIH not fall underneath the Health and Human Services, HHS, Department?

Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, I do not require any of that. I require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do it; not the FDA, not the NIH, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These agencies, Food and Drug Administration, NIH, are underneath their jurisdiction. That is why we drafted it this way, to get around the germaneness issue. We are not requiring FDA or NIH. It is only the Secretary of HHS.

As to the second part of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, you said we are creating new law. We were very careful, as I pointed out, that every word used in the proposed amendment is the same words used in the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. That is exemption, that is in both acts; registry of clinical trials, exact same words; and limits to, quote, serious or life-threatening disease or condition, again words all found in the 1997 act which we require the Secretary to do, so we do not get into this thing about putting a new requirement on FDA or NIH.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to offer an amendment that will ensure that the FDA continues to carry out its mission to promote drug safety and effectiveness and assist the public in obtaining accurate science-based information.

The FDA's mission is not to conduct secret investigation of its own employees. Unfortunately, some of the FDA's recent actions seem like they are more about protecting themselves than protecting the American public.

My amendment is very simple. It forbids the use of funds by the FDA to conduct any investigation of or take any action against an FDA employee who provides information or an opinion to the public or Congress that concerns the FDA and is not prohibited from being released under the law.

Congress has expressed serious concerns regarding recent reports that FDA has asked Dr. David Graham to leave his current position within the Office of Drug Safety after more than 20 years of service. Dr. Graham has been a dedicated public servant, working to ensure the safety of America's drug supply. Dr. Graham was asked to

testify before Congress at the request of a committee Chair and was under an obligation to answer a question posed by the committee based on his expertise. And Dr. Graham, to his credit, answered, in his opinion, there are five more drugs that we should look at, including the drug called Accutane, which has over 250 suicides associated with it. The public's interest and society's safety is certainly not served when the FDA goes around and asks their safety officers to leave their job because they have done their job and honestly answered a question put forth by committee members in a congressional setting.

In the words of Dr. Janet Woodcock, the former director of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research, `` . . . FDA thrives on differences of scientific opinion. That reality is our culture. Our scientists have the right to speak up and disagree and have a vigorous scientific debate. That's how we arrive at the best decisions.''

However, the FDA actions are contrary to this statement. The treatment of Dr. Graham and other employees undoubtedly has had a chilling effect on the willingness of FDA's employees to speak up and disagree when they believe the public's health is at risk.

Other reports have said that the Director of the Center of Drug Safety himself, Dr. Steve Galson, contacted the editor of the Lancet to suggest that Dr. Graham manipulated a study to be published in the Lancet. At the same time, according to the Government Accountability Project, FDA managers posed as whistleblowers, attacking Dr. Graham's credibility in an effort to discourage the Government Accountability Project from taking from Dr. Graham as a client.

The FDA also launched an investigation into Dr. Andrew Mosholder when a newspaper reported he was not able to testify before an advisory committee about his concerns about antidepressant use in children. This shameful behavior by management of the FDA cannot continue, and we demand that we put a stop to it.

I ask for support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I ask for the learned chairman to tell me where we are imposing a new duty on the FDA. What we are asking here is simply that the FDA follow the law; that they not use funds, as my colleague put it, for reprisals against employees who are encouraged to speak their mind, and when they speak their mind, they are investigated and harassed and intimidated and asked to leave their jobs.

My amendment specifically says we do not disclose, and make sure we do not disclose, anything that is confidential, proprietary, proprietary interests of the drug companies. As long as those are not disclosed and not confidential in that manner and no one does it, then there is no reason to be harassing, intimidating, and investigating people who testify before advisory committees.

There is no new change in the law. All we are saying is FDA, you are also subject to law. You have to follow the law. And those things that are confidential and proprietary in interest, we do not expect you will disclose them; therefore we do not do it.

So if someone can tell me what is the new duty, I will be happy to draft my amendment before we are done tonight, and we will make it in order then. I really do not see any new duty being imposed here, with all honesty. I am not trying to be flippant; I am just trying to get an answer to my question. Just like the last one, there is no new duty.

So if someone can tell me that, I will be happy to change the amendment to make it germane.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we drafted these amendments carefully with legislative counsel and others to make sure they were germane. If you want to rule that they are not germane, I guess you have the right to do that; and I will not appeal the ruling of the Chair because I can count the votes.

But the thing I would ask, when a Member has a parliamentary inquiry, if someone would at least tell us where the amendment is wrong so it can be corrected. With all due respect to the chairman, you read what was put forth, but you never say what is wrong with our amendment.

What is wrong with these last two amendments that made them not germane, so we can correct it to be within the parliamentary setting of this body? We have part of the House institution telling us our amendments are in order. We get to the floor, and we find them not in order.

I guess it is just a little frustrating when we talk about the health and safety of the American people, and we have examples where the FDA has not done their job, so we try to correct it in the only body we can, through legislative amendments, and we come here and we get this ``speak-legalese,'' and I do not have anything against legals since I am an attorney myself. But just a simple question like where are we legislating in this appropriations bill, when we have such tightly crafted amendments that are even taken from existing law so we do not legislate on an appropriations bill and we are still ruled out of order or not germane.

If you can answer that parliamentary inquiry, I would appreciate it.

But, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the FDA does make investigations under current law under their own administration. So how can you say they are not charged with the duty of doing investigations of their employees? They make that determination every day, whether a member can speak at an advisory committee, whether a member can answer a question, an FDA doctor, at a congressional hearing, as we saw with Dr. Graham.

I am bemused, to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding man of faith, Father Lawrence T. Gauthier. On June 4th, 2005, Father Gauthier will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his ordination as a priest. Father Gauthier's contribution to the Catholic Church and his faith has touched so many in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and beyond.

Father Gauthier's has focused on education throughout his entire life. Born to Leo and Margaret Gauthier on February 26, 1929 in Marquette, Michigan, he attended grade school in the Catholic school of Marquette. In 1949, he studied at the Salvatorian Minor Seminary and St. Francis Major Seminary in Wisconsin, earning his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy in 1951. He then went on to complete four years of theology at St. John's Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, Michigan.

On June 4th, 1955 at St. Peter Cathedral, Bishop Thomas L. Noa, D.D. ordained Father Lawrence T. Gauthier as a priest of the Holy Catholic Church. Although he had obtained a major goal in his career, he continued to pursue his education. In 1960, Father Gauthier attended Catholic University where he earned his Masters Degree in school administration and counseling. From 1965-1973 he undertook post graduate studies in his hometown of Marquette at Northern Michigan University in Education Systems. He also studied at Mount Mary College in Cincinnati, Ohio and Catholic University in Washington, D.C. in the field of Religious Education.

As a priest, Father Gauthier has dedicated his entire life and career to the church. He served as administrator of two missions in the diocese and also as pastor at Nativity Parish in Sault Ste. Marie, St. Michael's Parish in Marquette and St. Louis the King Parish in Marquette.

During those years in the church, he continued his devotion to education by spending the greater part of his priestly ministry in the field of Catholic Education serving as principal of Loretto Central High School in Sault Ste. Marie, Holy Name High School in Escanaba and Bishop Baraga Central High School in Marquette. In 1968, he was appointed Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Diocese of Marquette and three years later was appointed Superintendent of Catholic Education focusing on not only Catholic schools but also for all religious education throughout the Diocese.

Throughout his 50 years of ministry, Father Gauthier has held many positions in the church. He was the Director of Evangelization and served as Secretary, Treasurer and then as President of the Priests' Council. He was a member and President of the Priest Personnel Board and also a member of the Diocesan Reconciliation Board. He spent several terms on the St. Joseph's Association for Priest Retirement and was also a consultant to the Bishop.

Although Father Gauthier is retired now, he continues to help parishes and serve his faith. He continues his 30th year as Director of the Propagation of the Faith, Director of the Holy Childhood Association, the Home Mission and in 2000 he was assigned as the Catholic Relief Services Director. Once again for the third year, Father Gauthier has been assigned to represent the senior priests of the dioceses on the Priests' council.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking Father Lawrence T. Gauthier for his service to the Holy Catholic Church and his tireless dedication to the value of education and involvement in his faith community. Beyond the incredible credentials, leadership roles and accomplishments that span his lifetime, Father Gauthier has shown unwavering commitment to the people he has served. He has truly done God's work through his teachings and as a role model for parishioners.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an All- American hero. On Memorial Day, May 30 2005, Medal of Honor Veteran Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg will have a large granite monument dedicated in his honor and memory by the Menominee Mid County VFW Post 5966. This monument dedication is fitting in honoring the epitome of a hero on this Memorial Day.

Born to Elizabeth (Leaveck) and Jonas Hammerberg, a Swedish immigrant, on a farm 3 miles east of Dagget, Michigan, Owen Hammerberg was instilled with the values that would later make him an American hero. After moving to several small towns in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the Hammerbergs settled in Stephenson long enough for Owen Hammerberg to attend grade school and a portion of high school. The family then went on to Flint, Michigan, where Owen Hammerberg dropped out of school and hitch hiked out west to work on a ranch before joining the Navy.

At age 21, Hammerberg enlisted in the Navy on July 16, 1941. After training at the Great Lakes Training Center near Chicago, he was assigned to the USS Idaho and USS Advent, a minesweeper, for several years. While aboard the Advent, he showed a first glimpse of true bravery when a cable tangled in a mine risked an explosion and the lives of the men on board. Without hesitation, Hammerberg dove into the water, freeing the cable and saving the lives of his comrades. He was recommended for a Bronze Star, but unfortunately never received one.

Hammerberg's instincts combined with his swimming ability made him the perfect member of the Deep Sea Diving School where upon graduation he was assigned to the Commander Service Force, U.S. South Pacific Fleet, Salvage Unit in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On February 17, 1945, Boatwain's Mate Second Class, Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg showed his incredible talent, instinct and bravery that would later cause roads, ships and parks to be named in his honor.

In May 1944, the Navy was forced to blow up and sink 5 ship-tanks that had been set ablaze risking the explosion of nearby battle air- ships. Then the following February, they called in five diving teams to raise the hulks and clear the channel. Hammerberg was assigned to one of the teams. Each team would be allowed to go ``on leave'' when their ship was raised. An easy task for the skilled Hammerberg and his team, they completed their assignment and went on leave.

Another team, not bearing nearly the same fortune, became trapped in the steel and cables of a downed ship. In the attempt to reach them, the waters became muddied and not even a special diving team from New York would risk the rescue mission. After the call went out for volunteer divers, 23-year-old Hammerberg agreed and instinctively suited up his gear and set out through the black muddy waters to save the stranded divers.

It took Hammerberg five hours to free the first diver. George Fuller, who had been pinned by a steel plate, shook Hammerberg's hand underwater before heading to the surface for safety. In the attempt to save the second diver, Earl Brown, a large steel plate slid through the mud toward them. Hammerberg took the brunt of the plate on himself to save the life of the other diver. As a result, Hammerberg was crushed to death. Seventy-three hours after Hammerberg volunteered for the assignment, a Filipino father and son used their unsophisticated methods to rescue the last trapped diver, Earl Brown. The father-son team recovered Hammerberg's body.

That February, Hammerberg was awarded the last non-combat Congressional Medal of Honor in Michigan at the Grosse Ile Naval Station where his mother and father received duplicate medals. He also received the American Defense Service Medal Fleet Clasp, Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal, the American Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. These medals and his uniform are on display at Michigan's Own Inc., Military and Space Museum in Frankenmuth, Michigan.

On August 19, 1954, the U.S. Navy launched a destroyer escort, the USS Hammerberg, in the name and honor of Owen Hammerberg with his family present. His mother christened the new ship. Approximately the same time, Hammerberg Road was dedicated in Flint, Michigan and a park in Detroit was named in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the House of Representatives that on February 17, 1945, Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg did not have to put on his diving suit that last time and brave the dark waters to save these men. Yet without hesitation, this young man from Dagget, Michigan showed the world what it means to be an American serviceman-- unselfishly courageous. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and memory of Owen Hammerberg, an All-American hero on this most appropriate of holidays, Memorial Day.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having surrounding H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamentally important debates that this body can undertake. Regrettably, this discussion will only last a few hours on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

There have been no hearings on this bill or on the previous stem cell bill. H.R. 810 addresses the most fundamental, basic, ethical issue: life, and when does it begin; when should life, including human embryos, be open to experimentation and scientific research.

Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to our last breath, find the logic of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research flawed. H.R. 810 allows research and science to triumph philosophy and values.

This country seeks to be a world leader militarily, economically and scientifically, and culturally. But what about morally and ethically? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life off limits to research and to manipulation through stem cell research? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life from embryonic stage to old age as valued? We, as a Nation, believe that all life is precious and there is an ethical line that we as a people, as a Nation, will not cross.

We should lead by declaring that human life, even at the embryonic stage, is not open to manipulation, experimentation, or research. We cannot mask the efforts to manipulate human life under the guise of science or medical research.

You and I, each of us, we all share one thing in common: we were all embryos at one time. The embryos that were you and me were allowed to grow to become Congressmen, Congresswomen, police officers, factory workers, soldiers, government employees, lawyers, doctors, scientists. We were all embryos at one time. We were all

allowed to grow. Whether an embryo, a human life, is or is not allowed to grow, to become a unique individual, is a discussion this country really should have, a meaningful discussion, not just a few hours of debate in this Chamber.

It is my hope that families, individuals, couples and our children will have a discussion on human life and when it begins. Is an embryo life? At what point does an embryo become life? At what point does our Nation shelter life with the constitutional, legal, and governmental safeguards? Are there other ways to do promising medical and scientific research without destroying human embryos?

This is an ethical discussion I hoped would take place in the Halls of Congress, in the congressional committee rooms, in homes and workplaces all across America. Whether it is at the watercooler or in the cloakroom, these ethical and moral issues should and must be discussed as a Nation, as a people, as a culture, and as a world leader. Instead, this will only be discussed for a few hours on the House floor.

The other body has just gone through public, political, and senatorial debate on the use of a filibuster in our democracy. Because of this debate, a healthy discussion occurred in America. I, for one, do not wish to avoid the moral and ethical issues of stem cell research debate.

Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical research.

Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation.

When do embryos become life? If you read the materials, after 40 hours, less than 2 days, the fertilized egg begins to divide and the embryos are checked after 40 hours. Or is it 5 days when embryos are called blastocysts? At this stage there are approximately 250 cells. Or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in a laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still not call them human life but blastocysts so they are still open to research and experimentation?

When does life become scientifically nonexistent?

I ask these questions because H.R. 810 is silent on these issues. It does not specify how long these embryos are allowed to grow before they are killed--2 days, 5 days, 14 days or more. Proponents of H.R. 810 will claim that their legislation will address the ethical manner in which this research will be conducted. Yet their legislation is silent on the ethics, other than subsection C that directs the Secretary of HHS to create guidelines within 60 days.

Two presidential bioethics advisory panels have given us differing guidance on when and how research should be conducted. If this Nation, through its elected leaders, allows embryonic stem cell research, then we as representatives of the American people should have the courage to state unequivocally where we stand and answer the ethical questions presented before us here today. As elected leaders, we should set some basic guidelines, not leave the guidelines to unelected and unnamed administrative officials.

I know many Members on both sides of the aisle, of all political philosophies, have struggled with questions of morality, questions of life and questions of faith this past week. Many of us have asked ourselves that same question, and I have concluded that this legislation is unethical and unnecessary.

H.R. 810 mandates Federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human embryos. These embryos, if allowed to live, would grow into beautiful children like the snowflake children visiting the Capitol today. They are human life. You, I and they were embryonic stem cells that were allowed to grow.

Congress should not take lightly the destruction and manipulation of human life. It is clear that the American public does not. Forty-three percent of the American public clearly opposes more Federal funding for human embryonic research. Fifty-three percent clearly support more Federal funding, according to CNN.

As I said before, this legislation has no limits as to how long the embryo can grow. The National Academy of Sciences' guidelines recommends allowing them to grow for no more than 14 days.

Again, this legislation is not necessary. Human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal today in the private sector. Embryonic stem cell research is eligible for State funding in several States, California and New Jersey, and is funded through millions of dollars in private research money, $100 million alone at Harvard University.

Since August 2001, 128 stem cell lines have been created. And still human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the Federal Government today. The National Institute of Health spent $24 million on embryonic stem cell research in fiscal year 2004, the last year that data was available. Twenty-two human embryonic stem cell lines are currently receiving Federal funding. These lines are sufficient for basic research according to the NIH director. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has said that these lines should be exhausted first before we move any further.

Finally, embryonic stem cell research remains unproven. Not a single therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research. Instead of cures, embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in animal studies. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has had his staff scour the medical journals for real proof of therapeutic benefit of embryonic stem cell research, but has come up empty handed. There have been zero published treatments in human patients using embryonic stem cells.

While the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable, the promise of adult stem cell research is being realized today. Adult stem cells are being used today to save lives. Recognizing this, the National Institutes of Health spent $568 million in fiscal year 2006 on adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are being used today in clinical trials and in clinical practice to treat 58 diseases, including Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, brain cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis, stroke, and sickle cell anemia.

I am pleased the House is passing legislation today, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, to promote adult stem cell research. But we are faced now with a bill that is unethical and incomplete. H.R. 810 says nothing about human cloning, which is still perfectly legal today. I introduced legislation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and Senators Brownback and Landrieu to ban all human cloning. The inevitable truth is that if we pass this bill today, the cloning of a human baby will only come sooner. There is no room for shades of gray on this issue. The, quote, therapeutic cloning that will result from this legislation will make reproductive cloning even more likely.

We should not allow the creation of life for the purpose of destroying it. That is what happens with this bill.

Let me be clear. I am committed to funding scientific research that will unlock the origins of disease and develop cures that can help my constituents. Again, 58 conditions are being treated using placental and adult stem cells, and we cannot begin to imagine the promising new treatments and drugs on the horizon. But we cannot let

science leapfrog our ethics, our morals and our legal system. This is not a partisan issue, and it is bigger than a right-to-life issue.

It is clear that adult stem cell research has opened the door to the dreams of lifesaving treatments and cures for our most deadly and debilitating diseases, but I do not believe it is time to open the door to more embryonic stem cell research and open the floodgates to human cloning.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as this debate has gone on, and it has been a good discussion here today, I think it is worthwhile to come back to where we are on this whole issue here.

The embryonic stem cell research we are debating here today is controversial because of the means of obtaining these cells. Research involving most types of stem cells, those derived from adult tissues or the umbilical cord, is uncontroversial except, as we saw, the second issue here today is, how effective is it? Is embryonic more effective than cord? Are embryonic stem cells more effective in treating injuries and illnesses than the adult tissue stem cells?

So we sort of have a two-pronged argument here yet: How do you obtain the stem cells and, secondly, the effectiveness of adult versus embryonic stem cells.

But I think in this whole issue here, we sort of lose questions. Before we even get to those questions, I think we should look at it and say, what is the ethical consideration of the human nature, and that should be the first question we should ask, not what are the means we obtain it by, what is left over when we obtain the embryonic stem cells, or what is its effectiveness.

I think we have to look at the ethical considerations. Because cloning is one method to produce embryos for research, the ethical issues surrounding cloning are also relevant. In fact, I believe those ethical issues should really be the first question we should ask before we debate the means of obtaining, or even the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

I would hope that life would triumph hope and the question is really before we even get into effectiveness or means, but what is the human nature consideration? That should be the first question we should answer.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and then I plan on closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today about the quality of adult stem cells and they are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells. There are a number of things that show adult stem cells are highly versatile and just as effective if not more effective than the predicted embryonic stems.

The list of these studies is as follows:

Myth: Adult Stem Cells are Not as Versatile as Embryonic

stem cells.

Fact: A number of studies show adult stem cells are highly

Versatile.

1. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University in

Australia published a study showing that olfactory stem cells

could develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells,

muscle cells, brain cells and nerve cells. (Murrell W et al.,

``Multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa'',

Developmental Dynamics published online 21 March 2005.)

2. Dr. Douglas Losordo at Tufts University showed that a

type of bone marrow stem cell can turn into most tissue

types, and can regenerate damaged heart. ``This discovery

represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy,'' said

Dr. Douglas Losordo. ``Based on our findings we believe these

newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate

into most tissue types in the human body. This is a very

unique property that until this time has only been found in

embryonic stem cells.'' (Yoon Y-s et al., ``Clonally expanded

novel multipotent stem cells from human bone marrow

regenerate myocardium after myocardial infarction'', Journal

of Clinical Investigation 115, 326-338, Febru9ary 2005.)

3. In July 2004, research conducted in Germany, led by Dr.

Peter Wernet found a type of umbilical cord blood stem cell,

they call USSC's (unrestricted somatic stem cells), that they

showed can turn into several different cell types, including

brain, bone, cartilage, liver, heart, and blood cells. It

showed that the cells can turn into all three germ layers,

showing they are pluripotent. (Kogler G et al., ``A new human

somatic stem cell from placental cord blood with intrinsic

pluripotent differentiation potential'', J. Experimental

Medicine 200, 123-135, 19 July 2004.)

4. In June 2004, researchers showed that human bone marrow

stem cells have pluripotent potential. (D'Ippolito G et al.,

``Marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible (MIAMI) cells,

a unique population of postnatal young and old human cells

with extensive expansion and differentiation potential'', J.

Cell Science 117, 2971-2981, 15 July 2004 (published online 1

June 2004)

5. This study shows that blood stem cells can form cells

from all 3 primary germ layers, including endothelial cells,

neuronal cells, and liver cells. (Zhao Y et al.; ``A human

peripheral blood monocyte-derived subset acts as pluripotent

stem cells''; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

USA 100, 2426-2431; 4 March 2003)

6. Researchers found bone marrow stem cells in females that

received transplants from male donors. Researchers found the

Y chromosome in the brain, showing that bone marrow stem

cells generated neurons. (Mezey E et al.; ``Transplanted bone

marrow generates new neurons in human brains''; Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 1364-1369; 4 Feb

2003)

7. Another group of researchers showed that bone marrow

stem cells can form all body tissues. (Jiang Y et al.;

``Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult

marrow''; Nature 418, 41-49; 4 July 2002)

8. In 2002, Catherine Verfaille has turned these bone

marrow stem cells into skin, brain, lungs, heart, retina,

muscle, intestines, kidney and spleen. University of

Minnesota researchers found a certain type of bone marrow

stem cell (called a multipotent adult progenitor cells

(MAPCs)) that could be turned into the three primary germ

layers (endoderm, ectoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm). (Nature

advance online publication, 23 June 2002 (doi: 10.1038/nature

00870)

9. A single adult mouse bone marrow stem cell can form

functional marrow, blood cells, liver, lung, gastrointestinal

tract, skin, heart and skeletal muscle according to

researchers Dr. Neil Theise of NY Univ. School of Medicine

and Dr. Diane Krause of Yale Univ. School of Medicine (Krause

DS et al.; ``Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a

Single Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell''; Cell 105, 369-377; 4

May 2001)

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments. In fact, we just heard again that in fact we throw these cells away when we are done. We do not want them. There is nothing we can do with them so we should use them for medical research or else it will just be medical waste.

I must ask again, is that what we have come to as a Nation that in viewing embryos, that if allowed to grow

and divide could become human beings but we will just treat them as human waste?

The proponents of H.R. 810 are so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells. And why embryonic stem cells? Because they are the best hope according to proponents of finding cures. They say medical science can unlock these keys to life. We can cure any illness, any disease, or any injury.

The proponents argue we must create life, the embryo, and then destroy the embryo through research to unlock the mysteries of life; create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment. I believe as a country and as a culture that is a line we should not cross.

We heard today about other research with adult stem cells, cord, placenta, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and how about unraveling our DNA through the mapping of the genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures.

But where do we draw a line on medical research and say we as a Nation, as a people, will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation.

When do embryos become life? We have heard all kinds of figures today. After 40 hours? That is less than 2 days after fertilization when we are able to check embryos for division and fertilization. Or is it 5 days when the embryos may be called blastocysts? At this stage, they are approximately 250 cells. Or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in the laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still then not call them human life, but blastocysts so they are open to experiment and research?

When does life become scientifically non-existent? That is the question as elected representatives we have not yet answered. H.R. 810 does not answer that. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 810.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this legislation. This amendment here is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve amendment.

Basically, it says no funds made available by this act shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. When we did the energy bill, and I sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our amendment was made in order and was accepted by the committee. Our amendment then was a little more detailed. It said there would be no oil going into SPR until the cost of a barrel of oil dropped below $44 for 2 consecutive weeks under the New York Stock Exchange.

If we put that triggering provision into this amendment, there would have been a point of order and this amendment would have been accepted under the rules of the House. Therefore, we have changed it and said no more delivery of petroleum products to the SPR fund. So I am joined by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to support this amendment.

When I go back to my district, many of my constituents express their concern with rising gasoline prices. I suspect most Members are hearing the same thing when they go home to their own districts. In an already fiscally constrained economy, these high gasoline prices yield yet another burden to America's families' already-tight purse strings.

The high cost of gasoline and oil has long been a problem and one that Congress has long grappled with. Today, oil is hovering around $49 a barrel which some experts predict could spike as high as $60 a barrel this summer.

With Memorial Day just around the corner, we are seeing prices at the pump reaching over $2 a gallon, with some parts of the country seeing prices as high as $2.44 a gallon. How high does the price have to go and for how long before we take action?

It is no secret, there are no quick fixes or easy fixes when it comes to the problem of high gasoline and oil prices; but there is no reason to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some relief at the pump to our consumers.

To continue filling the SPR sends the wrong message to the American public who continues to struggle because of these record-breaking gas prices, and it does nothing to help reduce the skyrocketing prices at the pump. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to what we all know is a very tight oil market when the effect is creating even higher gas prices for consumers here at home.

Finally, suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity. It has approximately 695 million barrels that are now in storage. That is the highest it has ever been in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and hopefully at the gas pump at home.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to Members' attention a newly created OMB and Army Corps of Engineers' criterion for recommending operation and maintenance dredging of all small commercial harbors. Unfortunately, this criterion, which is highly inadequate and unfairly biased, will have a detrimental effect on communities in my northern Michigan district and on a number of communities across the country.

For fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, the Corps, with the help of OMB, has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the President's budget.

According to the Corps, in order for a commercial harbor to be considered high use, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo annually. As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine Army Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not be carried out this year as they were in past years. As a result, small-town, rural America will suffer more job losses, businesses will struggle and infrastructure could be damaged.

You only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my district for an example of the devastating effects this policy will have. Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not included in the President's budget for the first time in many years. If this harbor is not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy.

To give you an idea of how bad the silting is in this area, last year it was dredged and it was dredged down to 19 feet. Less than a year later, this weekend when I was at Ontonagon, it was back down to 6 feet. We lost 13 feet in less than a year because of the silt coming down from the Mineral River. Imagine the consequences for small towns like Ontonagon if their largest businesses are unable to receive the goods they need to remain competitive. Rural communities already have limited resources available to them without this added hardship.

The Army Corps must develop more appropriate requirements to determine whether a harbor is to be included in the President's budget for a yearly dredge. If they continue to determine whether harbors like Ontonagon receive funding in the President's budget based primarily on tonnage, our small commercial harbors will continue to be shortchanged, affecting the economic livelihoods of our communities.

We need to ensure that the Corps is putting forth guidelines and policies that are as fair as possible and also reflect an appropriate amount of transparency to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. In fact, I will withdraw the amendment if I may enter into a brief colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

For fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the Army Corps has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the President's budget. In order for a harbor to be considered high use, it must move at least 1 million tons of cargo per year.

This would have severe ramifications on small, rural harbors, such as Ontonagon Harbor in my district, which has typically been included in the President's budget. If the harbor is not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy. Without this yearly dredge, these communities are subject to harsh floods and

the inability to receive goods they need through these harbors.

I seek assurance from the gentleman that he will work with the Corps and us to reevaluate this policy that could affect not only my small harbors, but small harbors throughout this country.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assurances. I look forward to working with them on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act

shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.