Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the Short

Title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our amendment would stop the EPA from moving forward with a dangerous proposal that would allow more partially treated sewage into our waterways. This morning the EPA issued a statement saying it will not finalize its current proposal. The EPA has been mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years.

I am pleased to see that the EPA has now recognized that this policy proposal is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for business. Now Congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good.

Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood. Our amendment will not cost a thing. It will not change a thing. It leaves things just the way they are right now.

Currently, clean water rules say during major wet weather events, sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge, in a process known as ``blending,'' when no other feasible alternative exists.

The EPA's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually anytime it rains. Our amendment simply stops the EPA from weakening existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be effectively treated to remove the viruses, parasites, and bacteria that make people sick.

I know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will pose astronomical costs on local communities. That is simply not true. This amendment will not cost communities a dime. Our amendment would maintain the current policy. It would not prevent utilities from blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances. It would merely support current safeguards which do not allow blending when full treatment is feasible. Let me repeat that. Our amendment will not ban blending.

We have a clear policy choice. Should we provide effective treatment for sewage, remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources, close beaches, contaminate shellfish, make people sick, and rob the water of oxygen the fish need to breathe? Or should we allow routine discharges of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains? To ask the question is to answer it. The choice is clear just as it has been under the Clean Water Act for the past 30 years.

Congress needs to send a strong, clear message on behalf of our constituents. We do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim in. As a step in the right direction, vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Stupak/Shaw/Pallone/Miller amendment.

Groups Weighing in Against EPA's Sewage Proposal

American Littoral Society; American Public Health

Association; American Shore and Beach Preservation Assoc.;

American Rivers; Children's Environmental Health Network;

Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Clean Ocean Action;

Clean Water Action; Coast Alliance; East Coast Shellfish

Growers Association; Earthjustice; US Conference of Catholic

Bishops; Environmental Integrity Project; and Coalition on

the Environment and Jewish Life.

Lake Michigan Federation; League of Conservation Voters;

National Fisheries Management Institute; Natural Resources

Defense Council; New York Rivers United; Pacific Shellfish

Growers Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility;

Riverkeeper, Inc.; Sierra Club; Surfers' Environmental

Alliance; Surfrider Foundation; The Ocean Conservancy; US

PIRG; and US Conference on Catholic Bishops.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this concern and want to clarify this issue for him.

The short answer is ``no.''

My amendment would not change the existing requirements for CSO communities, which are outlined in the 1994 CSO Policy and were incorporated in the CWA in 2000.

The CSO policy allows combined sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment when it is not feasible to provide full treatment for sewage.

Bypassing is allowed under the CSO policy as part of a long-term plan to minimize sewer overflows and maximize treatment.

EPA's proposed sewage dumping policy is inconsistent with the 1994 CSO policy because it would allow bypassing full treatment even when it is feasible.

The proposed policy would undercut those communities investing in long-term solutions that are protective of public health, the environment, and downstream economies.

The proposed policy would also allow separate sanitary sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment and discharge largely untreated sewage even if full treatment would be feasible, as it should be under normal operating conditions for most well operated and maintained separate sanitary systems.

Given the heavy load of viruses, parasites, bacteria, toxic chemicals, and other contaminants in sewage, it is critical that sewage treatment plants strive to achieve full treatment, not just discharge poorly treated sewage because it is cheaper to do so.

I also incorporated Mr. Meehan's statement relating blending policy to this statement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), also a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, but our amendment does not intend to have any impact on any of the existing policies of EPA regions and States that allow blending or on any Clean Water Act permit that allows blending. We are saying maintain the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), also a coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who has been helping us on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who has been very helpful on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Can the chairman clarify that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that all EPA regions and all the permits that are written will comply with the current Clean Water Act rules and safeguards? Is that his intent also?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, with the understanding, and it is certainly our understanding, that all EPA regions and all permits that are written must comply with the Clean Water Act rules and safeguards, and that is the only thing we are trying to do here. We are not trying to change anything. So with the assurances from the chairman that he will make sure that that is what we are going to do and we have some time to clarify this even further, we will not ask for a recorded vote. We accept his courtesy that he will accept our amendment and make it a part of the bill, and we look forward to working with him on this and other related matters.

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) also for his work in this area, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the Members on our side.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of his amendment.

As to the last speaker, let me tell the Members what is going on here. In the Department of Homeland Security, they are not allowed to buy civilian aircraft. What happened just recently was Eurocopter, which is subsidized by the French and German governments, that is a subsidy. That is in violation of the trade agreements, and no one is enforcing it. As a result, in my district Enstrom Helicopter lost a contract to build civilian helicopters for the Department of Homeland Security, and the cost for the French/German conglomerate was like $23 million more; so it is costing the taxpayers more money.

I think we have to make a decision in this Nation. Are we going to continue in these trade agreements that are not enforced? There are other countries that are subsidizing their workers, and we sit here and we develop contracts and say because of this treaty or this agreement, we cannot do it; but yet we do not enforce the provisions of it. And what we are really doing is telling the Department of Homeland Security, at least in the helicopter industry, that we will buy European helicopters as opposed to U.S. helicopters.

We can no longer continue this. Please support the Manzullo amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will overwhelmingly support H. Res. 266, a resolution that pays tribute to Peace Officers Memorial Day, which took place yesterday. This is a special day to honor those law enforcement officers who have fallen or become disabled in the line of duty. As a former officer with the Michigan State Police and Escanaba City Police Department as well as founder and co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I am a proud cosponsor of this Resolution and want to thank my colleague Representative Hefley for introducing it once again this year.

The House will also overwhelmingly support H.R. 2107, a bill that requires the maintenance of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC and provides for the addition of the names of those in law enforcement who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Last Friday at the 17th Annual Candlelight Vigil, more than 20,000 family members, law enforcement officers, and friends of law enforcement gathered at this Memorial to respect, honor, and remember the 153 law enforcement heroes who in 2004 made the ultimate sacrifice.

Since September 11, 2001, many in this nation and this Congress have come to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made by our law enforcement officers. Every day these men and women protect and serve, often putting their own lives at risk.

Peace Officers Memorial Day brings us together to honor the sacrifice our nation's law enforcement and public safety officers make to our communities and our nation every day.

It is important as we discuss and pass both H. Res. 266 and H.R. 2107 that we must also resolve to provide our public safety officers the resources they need to meet the daily challenges of their jobs-- especially at a time when we have placed greater demands on them to fight and prevent terrorist threats. We can do that by fully funding important grant programs such as COPS, Byrne, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants.

These programs allow our local agencies to buy essential protective gear, hire the officers that they need, and obtain all the resources they must have to make themselves and our communities safe.

Congress can provide these resources through grants, especially the Community Oriented Policing Services or ``COPS'' program. This program was so successful that it helped to put 100,000 cops on the street under President Clinton. It is critical that Congress fully fund this program!

Unfortunately, the President's budget devastates the COPS program, requesting only $117.8 million for this important program. That is a $381.2 million cut below last year's level!

The President's budget also zeroes out the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program that provides funding for 19 different programs for counter-drug initiatives in rural communities. These grants are used to administer vital programs such as multi- jurisdictional drug enforcement teams, anti-drug education programs, treatment programs and alternative sentencing initiatives.

If enacted, the President's budget cuts will have far reaching effects on our local communities. Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities drug free. If Byrne Grants are zeroed out they will be unable to hire the officers they need to sustain their drug enforcement teams.

And let me tell you--when it comes to drug abuse, no community--urban or rural--is immune to this problem. To highlight how important these local teams are to our rural districts, take a look at this article from a local paper in

my First Congressional District of Michigan. On April 13th the Huron Undercover Narcotics Team seized 3,000 Oxycontin tablets from a home in the rural county of Presque Isle. This is just one example of the critical work these Narcotics Teams do everyday to keep our communities safe.

This Country's Drug problems are not going away. In fact, with the emergence of prescription drugs used and dealt illegally like Oxycontin, some would argue the problems are getting worse. My question is why are we zeroing out the funding that enables programs like the Huron Undercover Narcotics Team to exist and combat this problem that is only growing more severe?

We also need to provide assistance to help regional law enforcement and first responders talk to each other in times of emergency. My bill, H.R. 1323 ``The Public Safety Interoperability Implementation Act'', would provide grants to local law enforcement agencies to modernize their communication systems and become interoperable. These are the kinds of resources and tools I'm talking about!! We need to do everything possible to ensure that our law enforcement officers are fully interoperable.

Currently, firefighters and law enforcement officials may not be able to communicate with each other even if they work in the same jurisdiction. The tragic events of September 11th illustrated why it is so important that our law enforcement officials are fully interoperable. 343 firefighters and 72 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the WorId Trade Center on September 11th. 121 of these brave firefighters lost their lives due to fact that they were unable to talk to each other.

When our first responders are confronted with an emergency situation, it is absolutely necessary that they are able to communicate with one another so they can fully assess the situation and how best to handle it. These are the kind of resources and tools our first responders need. We need to do everything possible to ensure that our law enforcement officers that play an integral role in our nations anti- terrorism efforts are fully interoperable.

We also need to ensure that programs like Thin Blue Line are fully funded. The Thin Blue Line is a non-profit, volunteer organization that assists and supports the families of injured or deceased officers of law enforcement agencies. Thin Blue Line began in Michigan and is now beginning to expand throughout the nation. Thin Blue Line volunteers assist families with applying for benefits, counseling, and answering their question during the most difficult of circumstances. These officers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty and their families deserve to be honored, respected, and supported any way we can.

I am hopeful that we can continue to show our commitment to law enforcement by supporting their important funding needs as well as supporting these important pieces of legislation. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line for us everyday.

Mr. Speaker, I saw the gentleman speaking on the floor on this important issue, and I wanted to join the gentleman.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just come down here because it is a very important issue. It is often said in this House we sort of rush things through, and if it has 218 votes it passes; but the Senate is designed by our Founding Fathers to be more deliberate, more thoughtful, to take time and reason things out.

In order to do that, the minority party, whichever party it may be at the time, has certain rights that must be respected and honored. And what we have seen these last few years, that has not happened.

Unfortunately, when you have one party controlling the House, the Senate and the Presidency, at times they get caught up in their judicial power, their legislative power, their executive power; and they forget about the founding principles of this country, that is, that whether you are in the majority or minority party, there are certain things that should be respected and the right of the minority to be heard.

Whether it is a filibuster, or whether it is on the floor to have an amendment or a substitute bill, the minority should always have that right. In the last few years, I know I and other members of the minority party have felt we have been blocked from even having any thoughtful consideration of legislation. It is the main bill, no amendments are made in order, especially Democratic amendments, and they just ram things through.

Or with the Medicare reform bill, we have 15 minutes to vote; but it is left open for 3 hours and twist arms and have ethics investigations on the way those votes were obtained. Those are things when you do it at 3 in the morning and the vote closes at 6 in the morning like it did on the so-called Medicare reform bill, which is the prescription drug bill, and I am sure people will not be happy next year when they see it; but to hold a vote open from 3 to 6 in the morning, what is the majority afraid of?

One of the founding principles of any democracy, the credibility of your democracy, is how does that majority party treat the minority party. I never learned more about this than when I was dealing with a number of issues dealing with NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In order to be admitted to NATO, the dominant country, the majority population, has to treat that minority population with all due respect and courtesies in the legislature and in the executive and the way they are treated in their society.

Being of Slovakian descent, I was instrumental in trying to get Slovakia, and one of the reasons they were not admitted to NATO sooner, there was concern with how Slovakia treated the Hungarian minority in their country. And until reforms were made to show that the Hungarians had a voice in that country and an opportunity to make their views known, they were not going to be allowed into NATO.

So here we have the United States Senate, which says to bring anything before the floor, to have a thoughtful, deliberate consideration, you have to have 60 votes. It is 55-45. You have to have cooperation. The rules force you to cooperate.

Not like here where it is martial law: there is a rule, it passes, no amendments, no substitute bill, go with the majority bill and that is it, vote ``yes'' or ``no.''

But in the Senate, it is different. The rules force you to get along. It forces you to talk with each other and discuss the legislation. What do you object to, how do we do this.

So that is why you have this 60-person majority to bring anything to the floor under a unanimous consent agreement.

If we look at the judicial nominations that President Bush has enjoyed in his 4-plus years in office, there have been 250, and I think 208 have been approved. This is 96 or 97 percent have been approved. That is the best record of any modern-day President: more than President Carter, President Clinton, or the first President Bush.

Not everyone who is nominated who may be a Federal district court judge is automatically qualified to be elevated to the court of appeals or even the Supreme Court. You have a different set of facts. One is a trial judge; the other one is an appellate review judge. And the higher up, the broader your powers over a greater part of the Nation, especially the judicial circuits, all the way to the Supreme Court where one vote could determine the law of the land. So I think you need to have a certain judicial temperament to be elevated to each one of those steps. Those few who have been objected to have been based upon judicial temperament of the individual or the inexperience, whatever it may be; but that is for the Senate to decide.

To change the filibuster rules, if you will, change it for all of it, but they only want to change it for judicial and Presidential nominees. Why not change it for all legislation?

Absolutely. If a filibuster is so bad, it should go to 51 votes and not 60, and do it for everything. If you are going to do it for the judges, do it for everybody. Let us do it for the environmental laws, labor laws. Let us do it for trade agreements, defense; let us do it before we go to war, as we did in Iraq. That took 60 votes. But we only want to do it for the select few people.

So if you are really going to have a majority and minority party, if you are going to respect the spirit and the thought behind a minority party being respected by the majority party, if you are going to change the rules, apply them to all of the rules, not selective rulemaking. That is worse than the autocracy or dictatorship or whatever word you want to use where one party determines everything. That is where you have to be very careful.

In my home State of Michigan, we had a judge nominated by President Clinton, Judge White, who sat for over 7 years. Judge White never got a hearing, never did anything. The majority party, then the Republican Party, said we are not going to look at it. I am not saying that is the reason why they are blocking this handful of nominees by the President, because of Judge White; but the point being we have never seen the threat of nuclear option being used before. We saw Judge White sit there for 7 years and was certainly fit for the job. I am not saying tit for tat or anything like that, but what goes around comes around; and there will be a time, hopefully soon, when the Democratic Party will be back in the majority on the Senate side.

I would hate to see this where, well, you blocked us, we're going to block you, or you do this, we do that. That does not do anything for a democracy. The idea behind it that our Founding Fathers had for 217 years has been, there is a minority party which slows things down in the Senate. You may not like it but we have got to take our time and make sure that we do it properly. This President enjoys 96 or 97 percent of all his nominees being sent up and approved. But I guess they want 100 percent. I understand last week they even had an offer to approve a few more of these judges in good compromise, good spirit so we do not have any problems in the Senate. Because I really hate to see this nuclear option that you spoke so eloquently of become a reality in the U.S. Senate because that defeats the whole purpose of the Senate. We should have thoughtful deliberations, something we do not have a lot of time for here. And I understand the rules are different in the House because there are 435 of us. If we all got up to speak our mind, nothing would ever get done around here. But here is an opportunity to show the true principles of democracy and I think the true principles of democracy is again how the majority party treats the minority. They respect them. They give them an opportunity to be heard.

Do they have an opportunity to follow the rules and abide by them, those rules, when it applies to the minority when they are the majority or the majority when they are back to the minority? I would hope we would not get to this nuclear option. I would hope that reasonable minds would prevail. For 217 years it has served our country well. I just hope we do not change those rules on judicial nominees. As you indicated, it is a lifetime appointment, cannot be really recalled unless there is gross, gross, gross, improper behavior on the judicial bench which usually does not happen thankfully in this country.

We are a country of laws. We are a country of rules. No one party or no one person should prevail over them. This President has had, as I said, 96 or 97 percent, 208 of 215 nominees approved, some just in the last week or two. I do not think this nuclear option is viable. I would hope that we would

treat the Senate with all due respect. I would hope that the other body would take this decision carefully and not invoke a nuclear option. Because the only thing left then for the minority party on this side, being the Democratic Party on the Senate side, is to try to disrupt the proceedings of that Chamber.

If they are going to change the rules to suit them every time something they do not agree upon comes up, that is not really a democracy anymore and I think then the Senate minority party has to do what they feel is appropriate to bring attention to the mistreatment or maltreatment by the majority party. I hope it would not come to that because it does not speak well of our democracy. We are supposed to be an example for the rest of the world and how you treat a minority party by the majority certainly is one of the most critical factors that they look to.

We brag about how our country, that our President may ask us to declare war and if we do, the military listens to the civilian. That is a great respect that people always marvel at, how a popularly elected or electoral college-elected President can have control of the military, that the military does not see the President as a threat or the President does not see the military as a threat. That same principle should apply when we deal with one another in these great halls of Congress, whether it is the House or the Senate side.

Unfortunately we are not seeing that. If we don't get our own way, we'll just change the rules. After 217 years, that is not the way to run this country. For whatever reason why they have to have these last seven or eight judges approved to give the President 100 percent, no one gets 100 percent nowadays. Not even the schoolyard bully gets 100 percent. There are times when we have to stop and say, okay, step back a little bit. I would urge the majority party in the other body to step back and do not invoke this nuclear option.

Reading Congress Daily today, I guess the first signs of it are set for Wednesday. We hope it does not get to that. They are talking about staying in all weekend and debating this issue. Debates are fine. Let us respect the rules of the body, whether it is the House or the Senate.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue and others as he is down here each night working hard for the democracy and for the right of everyone to speak out during their time and place here on this House floor or in the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words tonight. I would like to change the subject from energy to the energy we see day in and day out on our Nation's streets, towns and communities and homes, and that is that this week is National Law Enforcement Week. I rise to pay tribute to our law enforcement officers and first responders who have so bravely protected and served our Nation, often putting their own lives at risk.

Since September 11, 2001, many in this Nation and this Congress have come to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made by men and women in law enforcement. As a former police officer with the Michigan State Police and the Escanaba City Police Department, as well as the founder and cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, this week has special meaning to me.

The focus of this week will take place Friday evening, when 153 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2040 as well as 262 other officers killed in prior years will be formally added to the Peace Officers Memorial at the 2005 National Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C.

The addition of these officers' names to the memorial is one way in which our Nation can commemorate its fallen heroes who have died in the line of duty. This week allows law enforcement officers and their families to gather together in one place and honor those who have lost their lives.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 16,656 Federal, State and local law enforcement men and women in the United States have been killed in the line of duty through 2004. In 2004, of the 153 fallen officers, sadly seven of these officers are from my home State of Michigan.

That is why it is especially important during this special week that we not only recognize the dedication of these officers, but also commit to providing our law enforcement officers with the resources they need to meet the daily challenges of their jobs, particularly at a time when we place greater demands on them to fight and prevent terrorism here all across America.

We can provide these resources only by fully funding important law enforcement grant programs that allow our local agencies to buy essential protective gear, hire the officers they need and obtain all the resources they need to make themselves and our communities safe.

Congress can provide these resources through grants, especially through the Community Oriented Police Services, or COPS Program, as we know it. This COPS Program was so successful that it helped to put 100,000 police officers on the street under President Clinton. It is critical that Congress continue to fully fund this program.

Unfortunately, the President's budget, which we really just recently passed, devastates the COPS program, requesting only $117.8 million for this important program. That is $381.2 million below last year's level. That is more than almost a 200, 300 percent cut in this program. The President's budget also zeroes out the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program that provides funding for 19 different programs for counterdrug initiatives in rural communities for funding our jails, and 19 different programs to allow local law enforcement to do what is necessary in their communities to best serve and protect their people. These grants are used to administer, as I said, vital programs such as multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement teams, anti-drug education programs, treatment programs, staffing our jails, running investigative bureaus, and also all the way to alternative sentencing initiatives.

If enacted, the President's budget cuts will have far-reaching effects on our local law enforcement communities. Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities drug-free. If the Byrne grant programs are zeroed out, as they are required to be underneath our budget, they will be unable to hire officers needed to sustain their drug enforcement teams.

Let me tell my colleagues, when it comes to drug abuse, no community, urban or rural, is immune from this problem. To highlight how important these local teams are to our rural districts, there is a recent article in our local newspapers in my first congressional district of Michigan. On April 13, HUNT, or also known as the Huron Undercover Narcotics Teams seized 3,000 Oxycontin tablets from a home in the rural part of Presque Isle. This is just one example of the critical work these narcotic teams do day in and day out to keep drugs out of our communities and our schools.

This country's drug problems are not going to go away with this one bust. In fact, with the emergence of prescription drugs used and dealt illegally like Oxycontin, some would argue the problem is only getting worse. My question is, why are we zeroing out the funding that enables programs like HUNT, the Huron Undercover Narcotics Team, to exist and combat this problem that is only growing more severe.

Congress also needs to provide assistance to help regional law enforcement officers and first responders talk to each other in a time of emergency. It is called interoperability. My bill, H.R. 3370, the Public Safety Interoperability Act, would provide grants to local law enforcement agencies to modernize their communications systems and become interoperable. Interoperability of an officer's communications system would allow different police agencies in different jurisdictions to communicate with each other in time of crisis.

Currently, firefighters and law enforcement officials may not be able to talk to each other, even if they work in the same jurisdiction. The tragic events of September 11 only illustrates and highlights why it is so important that our law enforcement officials are fully able to talk to each other via interoperability. Mr. Speaker, 343 firefighters and 72 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the World Trade Center on September 11, and 121 of the brave firefighters lost their lives due to the fact that they were unable to talk

to each other. No one could tell them to get out of the building.

When our first responders are confronted with an emergency situation, it is absolutely necessary that they are able to communicate with each other so they can fully assess the situation and how best to handle it. These are the kinds of resources and tools our first responders need. We need to do everything possible to ensure that our law enforcement officers that play an integral role in our Nation's antiterrorism efforts are fully interoperable and able to talk to each other, whether it is State, Federal, or local law enforcement, or first responders. Without interoperability, our public safety agencies face the challenge of being able to talk to each other when the emergency crisis strikes.

My State of Michigan is one of the leaders in its mission to build a communications network that allows its entire local and State public safety agencies the ability to talk with one another by radio, regardless of agency or jurisdiction. The network has right now 400 local and State agencies on it, but there are another 1,300 agencies that need to get on the network, and the main obstacle in reaching this goal is being able to get on the same network and talk to each other via the spectrum they need and the funding they need, which is why we have heard from national police and public safety organizations about the funding levels. If we tried to fund the whole Nation, it would cost about $10 billion, and that is what is needed to make this Nation's first responders interoperable or being able to talk to each other, regardless of the jurisdiction or agency they work for. But so far, it appears that only about $800 million in Federal grants have been provided for interoperability. Of this $800 million, we are not sure where the money all went to. In fact, how was it used? Was it used to buy radios? Were those radios able to talk to each other? Was it to upgrade systems, or was it just to study the problem? These are the questions we have asked on this floor of this House, because there is nothing more important to anyone in law enforcement than to be able to talk to each other to tell the situation they are in and ask for assistance if they so need it.

In fact, the independent 9/11 Commission actually held hearings in part to examine the communication gaps that actually occurred between law enforcement officers and public safety agencies and first responders during their response to the attack on the World Trade Center. What the Commission learned firsthand was that fire chiefs in the building lobbies, in the lobbies of the World Trade Center, knew little of the conditions upstairs, did not hear anything about what police officers and helicopters were seeing as they circled the World Trade Center. Earlier, Federal reports on the 9/11 emergency response concluded that the inability of these first responders to talk to each other, these first responders from different agencies to talk to one another was a key factor in the death, as I said earlier, of at least 121 firefighters. No one could tell them it was time to get out of the buildings, as it may fall upon them.

Since then, the Federal Government has called upon our States and local law enforcement officers and first responders to be even more vigilant and be prepared for possible attacks on terrorism, yet our public safety agencies continue to lack the ability to communicate with each other, between agencies and between jurisdictions. Firefighters cannot talk to police, local police cannot talk to State police, and so on and so on.

Despite the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and grant programs for first responders, program funding for modernizing their communications systems has fallen far short of the billions of dollars we need to make our Nation's public safety agencies interoperable. As I said earlier, approximately $800 million has been devoted to local public safety communications systems but, then, in 2004, no funding was provided at all. Again, even in the 2005 appropriations bill, not one dime went specifically to grants of interoperability. Why is it that we are always talking about the priority to make our communications system interoperable so we can talk to each other, but we are not providing the resources to get the job done?

Another question: Congress has provided more than $4.4 billion in first responder grants and to the States, but it appears no one knows how much of this grant money has been used for communications. I even asked my home State of Michigan. They have received some $120 million in the State formula Department of Homeland Security grants, but no one could tell me or my staff how much has been spent on communications systems and communications systems that were interoperable.

The bottom line is there is a lot of talk around here about interoperability, but no real reliable resources to help make this happen so agencies can talk to each other in times of disaster or, heaven help us, a terrorist attack.

As I said earlier, I have a bill that would help address this urgent need, and our bill, and it is a bipartisan bill, the Public Safety Interoperability Implementation Act, sets up a public safety communications trust fund in the U.S. Treasury to expeditiously move our Nation's public safety agencies into the modern day state of communications. In the short term, the trust fund will be funded by a three-year grant program funded through the traditional appropriations cycle providing up to $500 million a year in interoperability grants. The key is it has to be interoperability grants, to make your communications system in your jurisdiction so everyone, first responders, firefighters, paramedics, police officers can all talk to each other. In the long term, we provide a short-term and also a long- term solution; the funding for the trust fund will come from the sales of the spectrum conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. This bill dedicates 50 percent of the net revenue from future spectrum auctions to the trust fund. By dedicating funds from the sale of the spectrum, we would ensure that funding will be set aside no matter what happens in the annual appropriations process.

In a few weeks we expect a bill to come out of our Committee on Energy and Commerce for the sale of spectrum to move our televisions from the analogue system to more of a high-definition television, so we have to go to a different spectrum. That 800 megahertz spectrum is to be set aside for law enforcement. But then, they need the resources, law enforcement needs the resources to be able to put in the modern communications systems so they can all talk to each other. Whether you are in the upper or lower peninsula of Michigan, whether you are in Maryland or Washington, D.C., or Virginia, these jurisdictions, these first responders in these areas should be able to talk to each other.

Today we had an evacuation of the Capitol building and the office buildings here. I really wonder, could the Capitol Police talk to the Metropolitan Police? Could Metropolitan Police talk to subway police, could they talk to the Park Police, could they talk to the emergency people, could they talk to the ambulance drivers, could they talk to the fire department. They all responded, but could they talk to each other and communicate with each other to direct the resources, the manpower, the personnel we needed at the right time if it would have been a serious attack or threat here in our Nation's capital. I know in the Nation's capital from previous testimony, they have spent over $300 million on interoperability in the Washington, D.C. area. I also know that it is not fully operational and not all jurisdictions talk to each other. So we have some work to do. There is new technology out there now which will bring down the cost of interoperability, but we have to put forth the resources to bring this together.

It is clear, local agencies and the States cannot afford to do this on their own. It is clear specific funding will not be set aside in our current appropriations bill for this priority. It is time that we provide our first responders with the tools they need to do the job the Federal Government has called upon them to do, especially now during National Law Enforcement Week.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about it, firefighters and law enforcement officials may not be able to communicate with each other even if they work in the same jurisdiction. As I said, the tragic events of September 11 certainly indicated why this is so important. We talk about the events of September 11

or the 150 some law enforcement officers who will be placed on the memorial wall who died here in the past year, and we need to do everything we can to ensure programs like the Thin Blue Line are fully funded.

The Thin Blue Line is a nonprofit, volunteer organization that assists and supports the families of injured or deceased officers of law enforcement agencies. Thin Blue Line began in Michigan and is now expanding throughout this Nation. Thin Blue Line volunteers assist families with applying for benefits, counseling, and answering their questions during the most difficult of circumstances. These officers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and their families deserve to be honored, respected, and supported in any way we can.

I am hopeful that we can continue as a Nation, as a Congress, and as citizens of this great Nation to show our commitment to law enforcement by supporting important funding needs, including showing our full support for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is the least we can do for those individuals who put their life on the line each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dedicate this time to law enforcement officers and Law Enforcement Week. As I said, Sunday night, they will be putting the names of the officers who have fallen, 153 in the past year, plus 262 others killed in prior years, on a Peace Officers Memorial at the National Candlelight Vigil at the National Memorial here in Washington, D.C., and I hope during this next week while we are in and out of Washington, D.C., we take a moment to reflect upon those individuals who provided so much to us, people and individuals we often take for granted, our law enforcement officials throughout this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the United States National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum that honors the birthplace of the national sport of skiing in Ishpeming, Michigan. The National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum is celebrating 50 years of honoring the history and the sport of skiing along with the athletes, coaches and supporters of the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA).

The USSA, originally known as the National Ski Association (NSA), first considered a national ski museum in 1938 during a national convention. With great support, historian Harold Grinden thought it was appropriate for Ishpeming to be the site for the building because in 1904 the local Ishpeming Ski Club founded the national group making it the birthplace of organized skiing in the United States. However, due to World War II, the NSA could not begin building the museum until 1947. After 6 years of organizing, designing and construction, the museum was finally dedicated in February 1954.

It was that year that Grinden proposed honoring the ``greats'' of their sport through an induction into a ``Hall of Fame'' as many other national sports were doing at the time. Then in 1955, the National Ski Museum's name was changed to the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum. To date, the Hall of Fame proudly displays photos and short bios of 342 inductees.

In the 1980's space became a problem for the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum. In 1992, the group opened their doors to a new structure over 6 times larger than the original building. With the additional space, the Museum was able to feature newly designed depictions of such historic events as Norwegian ``ski troopers'' carrying infant Prince Haakon over mountains to safety in 1206 and a mural by local artist Roger Junak of the American 10th Mountain Division in WWII during the ferocious battles of the Italian Campaign. It also displays a WWII ``weasel'', used as a groomer in its early years, as well as various forms of uphill transportation and a historic timeline of the development of skiing.

The current building with its ``ski-hill'' sloped roof remains in Ishpeming, Michigan and encompasses a gift shop, library of more than 1,300 books, magazines and videos, as well as an auditorium featuring a 20-minute orientation for visitors. Early medals won by famous athletes of the sport are displayed with pride along with the most modern of ski equipment emphasizing the growth of the sport through the years. The most historic reference in the collection is a replica of a ski and pole dug out of a Swedish bog dating back to some 4000 years.

The U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum rightly honors the legacy and athletic greatness that has graced this sport through history. Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum on their first 50 years and in wishing them success in the future as they continue to honor the past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a national sports organization that began in Ishpeming, Michigan. The United States Ski and Snowboard Association is the national governing body for Olympic skiing and snowboarding and is celebrating its 100th anniversary on May 6th.

Originally founded as the National Ski Association (NSA) in 1904 by the local Ishpeming Ski Club, the NSA was the birthplace of organized skiing in the United States. The group changed their name to the United States Ski Association in 1962 and, as snowboarding grew in popularity and gained credibility as a sport, the final name change occurred in 1997 to the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA).

As the governing body for U.S. Olympic ski and snowboarding, the USSA has been consolidated since 1988 with the U.S. Ski Team in Park City, Utah where the team has been based since 1974. However, as a tribute to the founding roots of the organization, the United States National Ski Hall of Fame and Museum is still based in Ishpeming, Michigan where it also celebrates its 50th anniversary May 6th. The Hall of Fame proudly displays photos and short bios of 342 inductees.

In the one hundred year history of the USSA, it is proclaimed as the most diverse of any Olympic Sports organization with seven different athletic sport programs. The USSA Olympic Sports programs include alpine, cross country, disabled, freestyle, ski jumping, Nordic combined and snowboarding. The USSA manages 14 different men's and women's national teams, accounting for half of the Olympic Winter Games events.

In order to be serious international competitors, the organization requires the tremendous number of athletes to be trained and supported by an ever larger network of people. The USSA is comprised of 30,000 athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers and more than 100,000 parents, supporters and devotees. With this powerhouse of world class talent and support, the USSA should have no problem fulfilling their goal of making the United States of America the best in the world in Olympic skiing and snowboarding by 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the United States Ski and Snowboard Association on their first 100 years and in wishing them well in bringing home the Olympic spirit and the ``gold'' throughout the next century.

Mr. Speaker, I come here tonight concerned about drug safety and to speak out to protect our children from the acne drug Accutane, manufactured by Hoffman-LaRoche. As a legislator, I have called for more restrictions on the distribution and use of this drug, which is known to cause severe births defects and a form of impulsive behavior and depression in young people 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 a son or daughter while he or she was taking the drug Accutane.

Recent news stories have quoted an FDA safety reviewer, Dr. David Graham, when he spoke before the Senate Committee on Finance. Dr. Graham said: ``I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx.'' He told the Senate Committee on Finance 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 causes psychiatric disorders such as depression and suicide. It is linked to 268 suicides, according to the

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Herseth motion to instruct; and I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership as we stand with seniors, with disabled Americans, with working families, and with children as we unite against these Medicaid cuts.

This Medicaid program is working but it is woefully underfunded by the Republican-controlled majority in this Congress. Medicaid accounts for 25 percent of Michigan's budget. With an aging population and a weak economy where manufacturing jobs are being shipped abroad, we can ill afford to cut this safety net out from under our most needy citizens.

This House resolution would require between 15 and $20 billion in cuts in

Medicaid over 5 years. How can we ask between 1.8 to 2.5 million seniors, children, and low-income, hardworking families to sacrifice so there can be another $106 billion in tax cuts?

We have a responsibility to look at ways to modernize Medicaid, to help our States and provide better health care, but it is heartless to subject our most vulnerable citizens to the meat-axe approach of this budget.

This motion to instruct conferees asks to reject the Medicaid cuts and calls for a bipartisan, independent Medicaid commission to address the concerns.

Michigan's Medicaid program has grown 30 percent in 4 years, serving roughly 1.4 million citizens or 1 out of every 7 Michiganders. Who are these citizens? In 2004 Michigan Medicaid paid for about 70 percent of all the nursing home care in our State, 40 percent of all the births in our State; 27 percent of the adults on Medicaid have a job and are working. The State is meeting the growth in beneficiaries while holding down spending to approximately 1.5 percent.

It is time to stand up for their most vulnerable citizens and against these Medicaid cuts. It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 2005, the first day of the 109th Congress, this House adopted several changes to the House ethics rules that many in this body warned would severely weaken the ability of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to enforce the highest standards of ethical conduct in its Members, officers, and employees.

In the middle of March, these warnings, sadly, came to pass when the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct failed to adopt committee rules that would have given it the ability to investigate credible allegations of misconduct even in cases where partisan considerations caused the committee to be deadlocked.

Now we are left with a shell of a committee, a paper tiger that can perform only a fraction of the advisory, enforcement, and investigatory duties assigned it.

The absence of a functioning ethics committee and the collapse of the ethics enforcement process are untenable, unacceptable, and irresponsible. In the eyes of the American people, this can only serve to undermine the integrity and credibility of the Members of the House and the House as institution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Encouraging and supporting the development of innovative new technology is preferable to arbitrary increases in CAFE standards that will truly hurt thousands of American workers. Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences report of 2001 indicated that only the subcompact car segment of our fleet could be expected to achieve this fuel economy level.

This suggests that a substantial portion of the vehicles on the road would have to be very small to reach this objective. Reducing our consumption of oil should come from new technology, not by mandating a standard that requires most vehicles to be a subcompact.

The National Academy of Sciences also raises concerns about potential increases in highway fatalities if the auto industry is forced into selling a greater share of small vehicles. According to the analysis of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety Data in 1999, since CAFE standards were first announced in 1975, approximately 46,000 people died in crashes who would have survived if CAFE had not encouraged smaller, lighter cars.

I am concerned that this amendment would lead to more unnecessary fatalities. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey- Bishop amendment. This amendment includes a provision that permanently bans oil and gas drilling in and under our Great Lakes.

I offered this language as an amendment before the Committee on Rules last night. However, the Committee on Rules Republican majority refused to allow my bipartisan amendment to be considered on the floor despite strong bipartisan support for it in the House and by the American people.

The Great Lakes are one of our Nation's greatest natural resources and are vital to more than 30 million Americans who rely upon them for their drinking water. Understanding this, Congress has repeatedly banned oil and gas drilling in and under the Great Lakes to protect this vital resource. In 2001, the House voted overwhelmingly, 265-157, in favor of instituting a ban.

Last week when the Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up this legislation, I offered my amendment. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) undermined my amendment in favor of a watered- down version. That amendment is included in the bill we find before us today.

The Rogers amendment does nothing to stop drilling in the Great Lakes. What the Rogers amendment does is leave drilling practices up to the eight Great Lakes States and their legislatures. We could have eight different policies on drilling in our lakes. Plus it is Congress that regulates commerce amongst the several States, as is found in the Constitution in the interstate commerce clause.

The Great Lakes already face a number of threats, invasive species and contamination that leads to beach closures. Given these threats, it makes no sense to further endanger the Great Lakes by opening them up to oil and gas drilling.

The bottomlands of the Great Lakes will not provide enough oil or natural gas to make even a small dent in the amount of America's energy needs that are supplied by imported oil and natural gas. And an oil spill on the shoreline can contaminate our groundwater.

Unfortunately, pollution knows no boundaries. When one or more of the Great Lakes States does not have a ban and a blowout or a spill occurs, those States, all of the States, may be forced to pay the public health and environmental price.

The message is clear. Even an energy crisis is not enough to justify threatening our Great Lakes, the world's largest body of fresh water, to extract what industry experts agree will be a small amount of oil and gas.

I ask that my colleagues approve this amendment to enact a permanent ban on oil and gas drilling in and on the Great Lakes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if the chairman would remember, he did allow me to offer my amendment in committee, but before we had voted to do a permanent ban, it was undermined by the Rogers amendment, which basically says the same thing that it says in the body of the underlying bill, which encourages States to enact a ban.

As the gentleman from Texas knows well, because we have several States who deal with Lake Michigan and four of the five Great Lakes are international borders, a ban, if it is going to come, a permanent ban, which we seek, would have to be Federal legislation because of the interstate commerce clause from which our committee gets its jurisdiction. That is why we were very disappointed in that, especially.

In fact, in 2001, we did have a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, and it passed 265-157 with strong bipartisan support. That is why we are disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

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