Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his efforts and for leading our intelligence task force in all the work we have been doing here under the gentleman's leadership on this issue, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), who we will hear from next.

Having been in law enforcement for many years, and having founded the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus here, we are now looking at the third anniversary of September 11, and the question on many Americans' minds is: Are we safer? Is America safer today than we were on 9/11? The current administration says we are safer. The Republican leadership in Congress says we are safer. But just because they say we are safer, does not make it so.

For instance, when we are talking about our northern border, I come from Michigan and I border Canada. President Bush said on January 25, 2002, ``We are analyzing every aspect of the border and making sure that the effort is seamless, the communication is real, that the law enforcement is strong.'' He also said on February 2, one week later, ``We are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders. That's why we want to spend money to make sure the equipment is there, strategies are there, communications are there to make sure that you have whatever it takes to respond.''

The Bush administration has mastered the rhetoric. They talk a great game about homeland security, but the numbers reveal a stark reality. Here are a few points: we are 2,000 border patrol officers short along the northern border with Canada, and the President's budget request fails to include additional funding to make these border patrol officers a reality.

Only 5 percent of passenger planes are screened for explosives, according to the GAO. And the President wants to cut the number of air marshals by 20 percent this year.

Our maritime security efforts are severely understaffed and underfunded, allowing us to screen only 5 percent of the nearly 8 million seaborne containers entering the U.S. each year, and $7.5 billion is needed over the next 10 years in order to secure our ports and waterways. The Bush administration has distributed a mere $441 million for this purpose.

This year's budget is the first time the Bush administration has ever asked for any port security grant money. Without the Bush administration's support, Congress has provided only $587 million for port security since 2001. That is less than 10 percent of the money we need to do the job.

The President has cut overall funding for adequate protective gear and training for first responders. And this year is no different. He proposed more than a 20 percent cut in first responder training and State grants for training, equipment, and other homeland security needs. More than 40 percent of our Nation's firefighters have not received training for responding to nuclear, biological, or radiological attack.

Finally, national reports on the 9/11 emergency response found that the inability of our first responders from different agencies to talk to one another was a key factor in the deaths of at least 121 New York firefighters at the World Trade Center.

The independent 9/11 Commission report said ``funding interoperable communications should be a Federal priority.'' Here is what they said, the 9/11 report says: ``The inability to communicate was a critical element of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the State, local, and Federal levels remain an important problem. Federal funding for such interagency,'' interoperability as we call it, ``units should be given high priority.''

Here is what the President said: ``It is important that we understand in the first minutes and hours after attack. That is the most hopeful time to save life, and that is why we are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders. That is why we want to spend money to make sure equipment is there, strategies are there, communications are there to make sure you have whatever you need to respond.''

Strong language from the 9/11 Commission; strong language from the President. The reality is what it costs to get interoperability going in this country 3 years later is $18 billion. What has President Bush requested since 2003? He has requested $100 million.

The President even has zeroed out these accounts in the Department of Homeland Security budget over the past 2 years. At the rate we are going, according to the Department of Homeland Security officials, it will be another 20 years before our Nation's first responders are interoperable, where they can talk to each other, communicate with each other. Madam Speaker, we do not have 20 years to wait.

Earlier this year, on this floor, I asked how much in the formula grants provided for State homeland security has gone to interoperability. The Department of Homeland Security could not tell me. They committed to let Congress know the answer soon. We have recently found out that it is going to be about another year before we can even get an answer as to where the money has been spent, if it has been spent at all on interoperability. That does not say much about the oversight or planning in the Department of Homeland Security, and about where the billions of dollars of State grant formula money is going.

Madam Speaker, the problems I have outlined are occurring because of a lack of commitment on this administration to homeland security. Even the Department of Homeland Security still has not hired some 30 percent of the needed staff to properly run the agency. The homeland security challenges we face, whether it is border, airline, rail, or port security all require the same approach: real solutions instead of rhetoric, real resources and not political pronouncements.

Day after day we are told our Nation is better prepared against a terrorist attack than it was 3 years ago; but when only 4,000 Americans guard a border over 4,000 miles long, I cannot agree our Nation's northern border is secure. When our ports are not secured from the entry of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, I cannot take the word of anyone when they tell me my family and constituents are well protected.

And there is no comfort in the fact that our first responders are no closer now than they were after 9/11 to be able to talk to each other in times of natural disaster or terrorist attack. So how safe are we? The administration points to the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That does not make it. How does that make us safer when he was not an imminent threat, when there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we have diverted so much of our military and intelligence operations to Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still out there. Iraq is now a haven for new terrorist groups. Our country internationally is hated more than ever. We have alienated our allies, so exactly, how are we safer?

In the meantime, the current administration and the Republican Congress refuse to give our local, State and Federal agencies what they need to protect our borders and our communities. We will not even give them the equipment to talk to each other. On these issues, sure the present administration has mastered the rhetoric, but when looking at facts, we are dangerously behind in securing our borders to help prevent another attack or be ready when one comes.

As head of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, we are going to have a hearing next week on intra operability. There are technologies which

could be implemented today where police officers, State, local, and Federal, could talk to each other because of software developed by some of these companies. It is there. We should not have to wait more than 3 years after 9/11 for something as simple as allowing people to talk to each other. We hope we do not have another terrorist attack, but if we do, maybe we can tell those brave first responders, say, with the second building at the World Trade Center, the building is about ready to come down, get out. We could have saved 120 lives if we had the ability to communicate. Having been involved with law enforcement for over 30 years, it is time to look at reality. This administration is not doing the job. We are not safer at home than we were before, at, during or after 9/11.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for heading up our homeland security task force in our committee, and I look forward to working together in the future. Maybe together we can convince this Congress and the American people something as simple as first responders being able to talk to each other would save so many lives if we only had a commitment. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today's grand opening of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian is an excellent opportunity for this Congress and the public to develop a deeper understanding of issues that currently affect Native Americans, and also to celebrate their rich history and culture.

I am proud to be here today to commemorate the history of Native Americans nationally, and in my district of Northern Wisconsin, which is home to six Native American tribes: The Bay Mills Chippewa Indian Community, Hannahville Potawatomi Indian Community, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Little Grand Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indiana, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian is a great way of preserving their vibrant history and culture to our Nation. This beautiful long-awaited museum, located on the National Mall, will honor the culture of Native Americans who have contributed so much to this Nation and the world.

The museum, which is set against a backdrop of the United States Capitol building, symbolizes a deeper understanding and reconciliation between America's first citizens and those who have come to make these shores their home. This museum represents a spirit of the Native American tribes across this great Nation. I join them in celebrating the museum's grand opening.

Mr. Speaker, let us all work together to educate ourselves as to the issues affecting Native Americans in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a community in my district that is celebrating an important milestone. This weekend, Williams Township in Bay County, Michigan will celebrate its 150th anniversary. Williams Township is a small community, but a warm welcoming one, and should stand as an example to us all.

In the fall of 1854, Williams Township began its history in the same way as many communities in Michigan and throughout the country. A small party of six men visited the area, which was then uninhabited wilderness. Charles Bradford, John Gaffney, William Spafford, Charles Fitch, George W. Smock, and Lyman Brainard found the land inviting, and returned to Flint, Michigan to purchase the land they would shortly settle. On November 18th, 1854, John Gaffney felled the first tree in the area. It was his birthday, and Williams Township's.

In 1855, the Township was organized as a part of Midland County. Two years later, Williams, along with Hampton Township succeeded in persuading the Michigan State Legislature to combine them into the new Bay County. Though there was much dispute over whether Midland and Saginaw County residents could vote on approving the new county, the State Supreme Court allowed it to go forward in 1858, and on August 10th, the new Bay County held its first board meeting.

Those early settlers of Williams Township were primarily farmers, and their numbers gradually increased. By 1869, the population had grown significantly, and the Township was reduced to its present size of 36 square miles. Today, the population is about 4,500 strong, with another 2,000 or so in the City of Auburn, which split from the Township in 1948. And though the largest employer now is Dow Corning Corporation, which has its world headquarters and a specialty materials plant in the Township, farming and agriculture remain a vital foundation to the Township's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I said that Williams Township is a warm community, and I can personally attest to that. The Township was part of the area added to my district after the 2000 census, and I have visited several times in order to get to know my new constituents. I held a town hall meeting in Auburn in February of 2003. I was impressed by their thoughtful questions and touched by their welcome to me as their new Representative.

Later, in October, I went back to Bay City Western High School to speak to an American Government class and to have lunch at the Williams Township Senior Center. Again I was impressed by the residents of the Township, young and old. I was and continue to be very proud to represent this fine community in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Williams Township and its residents on their first 150 years as a community and in wishing them well in their next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 757, is a resolution to mark the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Although I voted in support of this resolution, I do have some reservations about the statements it contains.

Specifically, the resolution and the Bush administration's assertion that Iraq is the ``central front'' in the war on terror--while previously wrong--has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What have the administration's tactics amounted to? We now see terrorists in Baghdad--where none were before. We now see Iraq is a symbol for terrorist recruitment--where no symbol existed before.

Congress and the American people trusted the President when he said we needed to go to war in Iraq. It is clear that trust was misplaced.

As a result, what we have to show from trusting President Bush and his administration is 1,000 American lives lost, close to 7,000 of our men and women wounded. We have a military stretched so thin it is practically to its breaking point. We are spending billions of taxpayer dollars each month that we could be using to fix critical gaping homeland security vulnerabilities here at home or for counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And this Administration has destroyed our international credibility--even with many of our closest allies.

We know the President's justifications for going to war in Iraq have proven to be false--even experts within the administration have stated that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission unequivocally found that Iraq had no ties to the 9/11 attacks and there was no collaborative relationship between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda.

The American people deserve the truth. The truth is not that we entered into war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or on the basis of terrorism. The truth is that this administration used September 11 as an excuse to enter into a war in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein--and has, in the process, created a rallying cry and call to arms for terrorists around the world as a result.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase funding for seniors' meals programs by $10 million. The Meals on Wheels program is a critical lifeline to our Nation's seniors who are most in need of our assistance.

The bill includes $730 million for senior nutrition programs, $16 million more than last year, or a 2.2 percent increase. I wish to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for including these additional funds and recognizing the importance of these programs to our seniors. I am offering this amendment because, despite the increase in the bill, the funding falls far too short.

I am sure that all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our districts. I am sure that the seniors have told my colleagues how much they depend on senior meals assistance and the Meals on Wheels program, or the meals they receive at the senior centers. I am sure that if Members, like I have done in the past, would go out and actually deliver senior meals to the homes of homebound seniors, they would realize how important not just these prepared meals are but also the social interaction these homebound seniors have with members of the public.

I have heard from the area agencies on aging in my district that they are cutting meals they are offering. In Michigan, we have had to cut back significantly weekend meals, evening meals, and even the senior lunch meals. The challenges faced by our Meals on Wheels program is compounded by the fiscal problems of the States that have not been able to increase their contributions, despite their acknowledgment that the need for these programs continues to grow.

This amendment would simply increase funding for the Nutrition Services Incentives Program by $10 million to $160 million. The House approved a similar amendment of mine back in 2001. Unfortunately, that amendment back in the 2001 appropriation bill to increase funding for the program to $160 million was dropped in conference. That was 4 years ago, and funding for senior meals programs has stayed basically flat until this year.

Mr. Chairman, we need to make this investment now. Nationally, 4.6 million Meals on Wheels meals were cut last year, and a number of congregate meals were cut by 2.9 million, for a total of 7.5 million meals that had to

be cut last year because of lack of funding. These decreases in funding ignore the 25 percent increase in the number of Americans who are expected to be eligible for the Older Americans Act programs in the next 5 years.

It is critical that we include the highest level of funding possible for senior nutrition programs. I understand and I appreciate the work of the committee and what they have done to increase funding. I appreciate the fact that both the ranking member and the chairman have indicated that, if possible, they will try to increase funding in the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment with the understanding that we will continue to work to increase funding in the future. This program is critically important to our seniors. While I appreciate the appropriators' work, I think we need to continue to highlight the concerns that we have for the lack of funds for the Senior Meal Program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously my oath of office to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In it, I swear to ``always protect and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . so help me God.''

I will be doing just that when I vote against H.R. 3313. This bill, which strips the courts of their right--and obligation--to hear challenges to federal law, is a direct attack on our U.S. Constitution.

I have long been a supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act that Congress passed in 1996.-I believe that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and woman.

Despite my support for DOMA--we cannot as Members of Congress, knowingly vote for legislation that undermines the clearly stated separation of powers between the three branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. This separation of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches serves as the foundation of our democracy and our system of government.

If we fail today to ``support and defend'' the Constitution, what's next? This legislation sets a terrible precedent!

Will Congress prevent the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from interpreting civil rights, worker or religious rights laws? Will the courts next be blocked from reviewing actions of the executive branch?

Do we really want to head in a direction where the Constitution and courts reflect only on the political views of the political party that controls the U.S. House, Senate and the Presidency?

I will not use my constituents' vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to undermine our Constitution for blatant election-year politics. And election-year politics is the only reason why this misguided legislation is on the floor. It is truly shameful, as this legislation undermines the integrity and the moral authority of this legislative body to the American people.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3313.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary vessel stationed in my district. For the last 60 years, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw and her crew have sailed the northern Great Lakes, keeping these vital waters open and safe. On August 12, past and present crew members of the Mackinaw will gather in Cheboygan, Michigan to celebrate the ship they affectionately refer to as ``Big Mack'' or ``Queen of the Seas,'' and its six decades of service to the State of Michigan and the United States.

In 1941, the United States Congress authorized the construction of a new ice breaker for the Great Lakes. Three years later, on December 20, 1944, the Mackinaw was commissioned in Toledo, Ohio and made its maiden voyage to its new home, Cheboygan, Michigan. At 290 feet long, the Mackinaw was, and is, the largest and most powerful Coast Guard vessel on the Great Lakes.

Today, there are still men and women in Cheboygan who remember the Mackinaw's arrival in their harbor when thousands gathered on Christmas Eve to welcome the new cutter to their city. Since then, the residents of

Cheboygan have taken enormous pride in the Mackinaw as the ship and her crew worked to keep shipping lanes open. In its first year of service, the ship opened waterways nearly six weeks ahead of schedule, which allowed vital cargo to reach its destination and kept our nation's war machine running at top capacity.

As the nation shifted to peacetime production, the Mackinaw kept up its wartime pace. It continued to break up ice several feet thick every spring to ensure the safe arrival of essential raw materials for the steel and auto industries of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. The Mackinaw has seen the extraordinary expansion of American industry, and made an extraordinary contribution to that expansion.

Mr. Speaker, my most fond memory of the Mackinaw is the bitterly cold winter of 1993-1994. During that winter, the Mackinaw showed her brute ice-breaking strength time and time again. The Mackinaw freed countless vessels from frozen icy impasses. She has rescued stranded boaters, provided safe passage, and even rescued animals in peril.

Staff of the Mackinaw so admire the vessel and the Cheboygan community that they gather every five years for a reunion of current and past shipmates.

Mr. Speaker, the Mackinaw and her crew have played a role not only in national and international commerce, but also in more local relationships. The crew of the Mackinaw has long been an important part of the community in Cheboygan, with members pitching in to fight fires, forming relationships with residents, and many even settling in Cheboygan after their retirement.

As we move closer to 2006 when this historic vessel is decommissioned and replaced with a new cutter Mackinaw, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in paying tribute to the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw and her crews over the last 60 years. They deserve our deepest gratitude, and I wish them well when they gather next month to celebrate 60 years of fond memories.

Mr. Speaker, on August 13, 1979, the city of Marquette, MI, entered into a sister city relationship with Yokaichi, Shiga Prefecture, Japan. Since then, the relationship has flourished, and I would like to congratulate both cities on their upcoming 25th Anniversary of this sister-city bond.

In his September 12, 1992 remarks to the 102nd Congress, my predecessor, Congressman Robert Davis, praised these sister cities and included an extensive history of that relationship (E2819-2821). I would also like to highlight the history of the Marquette-Yokaichi sister-city program:

On September 12, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the Sister City program to build close relationships and cultural understanding between people of different countries. President Eisenhower's theory: these new relationships could be a powerful force in promoting world peace and would help prevent misunderstandings between the governments of those countries.

On November 14, 1968, Michigan Governor George Romney and Shiga Prefecture's Gov. Kinichiro Nozaki initiated a Sister State relationship. This was followed by annual exchanges between these states and the encouragement to establish bonds between their cities.

When the cities of Marquette, Michigan and Yokaichi, Shiga, Japan signed their August 13, 1979 Sister City Agreement, its focus was directed to cultural exchanges with the intent of developing long-term friendships and understanding between the people of these two communities. Several actions have assisted its continued expansion and success:

Annual exchanges of formal delegations and several informal delegations have occurred since 1979.

Each delegate, visitor, student, teacher artist or other representative to his or her sister city is welcomed as a member of an extended family and stays with a host family that may include three generations in its household.

``Sister'' agreements were signed between the Rotary Clubs in 1979 and the Chambers of Commerce in 1983 of the two cities.

The two cities have also had many exchanges through their education programs. Northern Michigan University has offered an academic year scholarship to a student from Yokaichi since 1980 and several have returned to receive degrees there. The Japan Center for Michigan Universities, located twenty miles from Yokaichi, has offered scholarships to three Northern Michigan University students each academic year since 1989.

Marquette and Yokaichi school students exchange letters and the schools in each city teach their pupils about their Sister City. Michigan and Shiga initiated annual teacher exchange and government worker exchange programs in the early 1980's. Michigan and Shiga initiated a summer high school student exchange program in the 1990's.

Finally, over 100 Marquette or Yokaichi casual visitors have been welcomed to their sister city. More than 2,500 delegates, host family members, students, teachers, government officials and informal visitors have participated directly in the Marquette-Yokaichi partnership. With each exchange has come the opportunity to plant new seeds of friendship and understanding, many of which have become self-sustaining gardens that are freely shared with others in the community. With each exchange has come the opportunity to become a member of an extended family. And for many, it has become a life-changing experience.

Mr. Speaker, again I applaud the cities of Marquette and Yokaichi for their great success in building this special relationship through their sister-city status. I congratulate them on their 25th anniversary and I wish them continued success for the next twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a church in my district that recently celebrated a remarkable milestone. On July 2, the members of the Grace United Methodist Church in Houghton, Michigan celebrated their congregation's 150th anniversary. For the last century and a half, Grace United Methodist Church has been a place of worship, prayer and fellowship for the people of this community in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

In 1854, the same year that the Village of Houghton was founded, Reverend Lewis W. Earl organized the Portage Lake Class, which would become today's Grace United Methodist Church. Three years later, the small congregation resolved ``to build a house of worship in Houghton,'' and construction began in the spring of 1859. Later that year, the structure, which was still being built, was moved to the corner lot that is the site of the present church, thanks to the generous gift of Mr. William Newcomb.

During the pastorate of Reverend C.V. Thompson from 1888 to 1893, the congregation decided to construct the elegant stone church building that is in use today. In June 1893, the completed church was dedicated with much ceremony. Several of the day's most prominent clergymen came to Houghton to give lectures or sermons as part of the dedication activities, including Reverend Earl Cranston, Reverend Joseph Frazer, Reverend Bishop Ninde, and Reverend A.R. Bartlett.

On the evening of November 24, 1916, tragedy struck as Grace Church was almost completely destroyed by fire. Fortunately, the red sandstone walls remained standing, which also protected the church's beautiful stained glass windows. While the members of Grace Church were understandably upset by this turn of events, the other churches of Houghton were quick to offer their assistance. As a result, services were held for several months in the Masonic Temple, and then for 2 years the congregation held joint services with the Presbyterian Church while Grace Church was being rebuilt.

Reconstruction of the church building was delayed by the start of World War I, and the congregation was not able to move back into its own church until 1918, when steps were taken to at least rebuild the basement level. Complete restoration of the church was finally achieved in 1924 when Reverend John E. Lewin worked tirelessly to raise the necessary funds and secure a loan from the Board of Home Missions and Church Extension of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Mr. Speaker, much has changed in the Grace United Methodist Church's first 150 years. After the church recovered from the 1916 fire, it continued to make improvements and expansions to accommodate its growing congregation. It has also received the guidance and leadership of a number of pastors from its founding by Reverend Earl to the current pastor, Reverend Tom Anderson. But throughout these changes, the members of the Grace United Methodist Church have been true to their faith and to each other.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House join me in congratulating the Grace United Methodist Church and its members on their first 150 years as a community of faith, and in wishing them well in their next 150.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a church in my district that has recently passed a remarkable milestone. On July 11, the members of the Bethany Lutheran Church in Isabella, Michigan celebrated their congregation's 100th anniversary. For a century, the Bethany Lutheran Church has been a place of worship, prayer, and fellowship for the people of this small farming community in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

On July 11, 1904, what was then the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church held its first meeting at the home of John Wester in Isabella. This first service was conducted by a seminarian, J.J. Youngren, who used Matthew 5:20-26 for his sermon. Reflecting the heritage of the community, Swedish was the primary language of the congregation for its first twenty years.

On December 26, 1904, the church's first ordained pastor, Reverend K.M. Holmberg, held his first service, using John 1:1-14 as the basis for his sermon. The following spring, the church purchased a half acre of land from one of its members, Mr. Jacob Carlson, where the church building stands to this day. By 1906, the church's Secretary, Mr. Martin Nyquist, was planning for the church building, and construction began on May 31, 1908. The church architect and chief carpenter was Fred Magnuson.

Just over four years later, on July 14, 1912, the congregation attended the first service in the church's new home. Though there have been a number of improvements to the building, the congregation of the Bethany Lutheran Church still meets each Sunday in that original structure.

Mr. Speaker, much has changed in the Bethany Lutheran Church's first century. Always a small congregation, the church's membership has waxed and waned over the years from the original 39 members to the 17 of today. It has also received the guidance and leadership of a number of pastors from Reverend Holmberg to the current pastor, Reverend David Hueter. But throughout these changes, the members of the Bethany Lutheran Church have been true to their faith and to each other.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House join me in congratulating the Bethany Lutheran Church and its members on their first 100 years as a community of faith, and in wishing them well in their next 100.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his support in including my provision in this bill that calls for the timely review and adjustment of pilotage rates by the United States Coast Guard; and of course, special thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his continued efforts to advocate for the just treatments of our American maritime pilots.

Unfortunately for American maritime pilots, the review has been far from timely, and a permanent adjustment flat out has not happened. Last fall, during floor debate on this bill, I engaged in a colloquy with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to raise the issue that no permanent rate adjustment for pilots had been made. At that time, I was vexed at how the Coast Guard, whose responsibility it is to set the rates that American pilots charge shipping companies for pilotage services, let the 2003 shipping season come and go without issuing a permanent rate adjustment.

The Great Lakes pilotage system performs critical safety and environmental functions for the Great Lakes. And not only that, it also requires by law that every vessel entering the Great Lakes has a maritime pilot on board. It does not make sense to underfund a pilotage system which is crucial to the largest freshwater body in the world, yet the Coast Guard failed to complete a permanent, full rate adjustment at all last year. At the end of last year, the Coast Guard finally did issue an interim rule which provided only a partial rate adjustment.

In a letter I received from the Commandant earlier this year, I was advised that a supplemental rule scheduled to be published in February was going to be delayed until May.

Mr. Speaker, Members, you might further understand my utter disbelief and complete frustration that a supplemental rule is still not out yet, and there are signs now it will not be out until October and maybe later.

Remember, the supplemental rule will not change the rate. It will just trigger another round of public comment.

Every day that goes by is another day that pilots are not getting the pay that they not only deserve but are entitled to. This is contrary to the Coast Guard's promise of last year to adjust the current pilot system funded at 1997 levels. This is particularly disturbing because the Coast Guard regulations require rates to be reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis. Setting rates to 1997 levels will inevitably result in the fraying of the Great Lakes pilotage system.

Foreign shipping companies and their agents in the United States have urged the Coast Guard to delay and reduce the proposed rate increase. This is not surprising because foreign shipping companies have an economic interest in reducing these rates, which they pay. However, it is the Coast Guard that by law bears the responsibility for ensuring that rate reviews and adjustments are completed in a timely manner and reflect the formula set out in detail in the agency's own regulations. It is simply not acceptable for the Coast Guard to have repeatedly missed its own deadlines of a rate adjustment. Such delays will only continue to subject the Coast Guard to the charge that it is placing the economic interests of foreign shipping companies ahead of the environmental protection and marine safety of the Great Lakes.

It is unbelievable to me that it is actually possible that another shipping season will come and go without a permanent adjustment. After having written five letters in the last year requesting a prompt establishment of a permanent Great Lakes maritime pilotage rate, that is five times we have written, enough is enough; and I believe we need to call on GAO to investigate this issue.

Again, I exhort the Coast Guard to follow its own rules and implement a full pilotage rate adjustment on the Great Lakes now. The pilots in my congressional district bordering Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron as well as pilots throughout the Great Lakes have waited long enough for the Coast Guard's empty promise to come to fruition.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank the ranking member, and I think the chairman for his help and support.

Mr. Speaker, this week the President visited Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Too bad his visit was a pep rally. Instead, he owed the people of Northern Michigan some answers about his failed policies that have taken this Nation backwards in so many ways.

This is what the President should have talked about: how we would address the infinite list of problems and confusion with the sham Medicare prescription drug law; why we created new mandates for Northern Michigan schoolteachers and students through No Child Left Behind, but then failed to provide the needed financial resources to meet them; how he will restore the 397,000 jobs in Michigan we have lost, and more than 2 million nationwide. Many of these jobs have been shipped overseas.

The deficit: why the country has gone from record surpluses to a record $521 billion deficit. Why did the President choose tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of putting the Nation's checkbook deep in the red?

Homeland security: Why has the President repeatedly cut needed funding for homeland security grants to local and State agencies. The Great Lakes: How will he restore the Great Lakes? His current proposal is a study of studies that will only keep us treading water.

Instead of real answers, all this President can give the American people is a pep rally. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I support the Farr amendment and would like to take this opportunity to raise another equally important and related issue.

Colombia is a nation that has been embroiled in a 40-year civil war. Despite this fact, as Members of Congress we must seriously question Colombia's commitment to winning that fight. I say this because, currently, Colombian law excludes from their military draft individuals who are high school graduates. In other words, if you graduate from high school in Colombia, you do not have to serve in their military.

Colombia is sending its least fortunate citizens off to fight its civil war, but it is unwilling to require the sons and daughters of the elite to fight. If the elite, educated Colombians will not send their sons and daughters to fight in their own civil war, why should American troops be sent to Colombia in their place?

Every year we hear that this issue is being addressed by the Colombian government, but over and over again, fact remains, it has not been corrected, and every year we get an increase for more and more U.S. troops to fight in that civil war.

The Bush administration is willing to involve more U.S. men and women in Colombia's civil war, while the elite of Colombia society is protected from military service. This administration now wants to increase the troops to 800 people, exposing more of our young men and women to harm.

Colombia needs to reform its conscription laws to make military service universal and fair. It needs to change its laws to do away with the existing discriminatory practices and create a universal military service obligation without distinction for economic, social or education conditions.

The Bush administration wants an open policy to send as many military troops and contractors to fight in Colombia's 40 year civil war, while Colombia's elite has exempted itself from military service. We should not be involved in Colombia's civil war at all.

At a time when our military is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration should not be sending yet more American troops overseas to fight in a war that well-off Colombians seem unwilling to fight for. I ask and urge our Members to support the Farr amendment and limit the U.S. involvement in this unjust civil war in Colombia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for trying to do something to change the way we address the manufacturing needs in this Nation. We have many challenges facing the manufacturing sector today. With this bill, it is a start; but I am really disappointed that the bill continues to take the business-as-usual approach.

This is not a time for business as usual. We have lost, as my colleagues can see, throughout this country about 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since President Bush took office. In Michigan, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, we have lost manufacturing jobs under this administration.

This legislation is only a drop in the bucket as to what we need. It cannot be the President's business-as-usual when it comes to manufacturing jobs.

I urge this administration, and we have written to Secretary Evans, we have written to the President, we have urged them to change course and support real action now to help our U.S. manufacturers. The administration must change course and respond to the skyrocketing health care costs with a prescription drug card benefit that supports employer-provided coverage; address the employer/employee pension issues so that employers can contribute the appropriate amount to the pension funds, freeing up resources for investment, hiring, and wage increases; take action to level the international playing field on these so-called trade agreements we have. They are not fair, but they are certainly free and giving away our jobs.

We urge the President and this administration to support partnerships with the States, businesses and employees which promote research and development, future technologies and a trained workforce. Until we do this, as we Democrats have been advocating for some time, this bill will only be a drop in the bucket to support our U.S. manufacturing.

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

I rise in strong support of the Gordon amendment that would increase funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.

The MEP program has successfully helped small manufacturers to modernize and stay competitive in the global marketplace. I do not believe that the administration would veto a whole bill based upon the fine amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

For example, I know that MEP has directly helped a number of companies in my district including Jacquart Fabric Products with 100 workers in Ironwood and Horner Flooring Company, which employs 100 people in Dollar Bay, Michigan.

At a time when millions of manufacturing jobs are being lost, we need to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, not continually undercutting this valuable program which the administration insists on doing every year.

The program is currently authorized at $106 million, but the President only asked for a mere $39 million in fiscal year 2005. $39 million for MEP will cost the U.S. tens of thousands more manufacturing jobs. This is not what we need in this country.

These programs help small manufacturers with everything from plant modernization to employee training. Also, if the majority is really serious about helping manufacturers, it would fund MEP in this bill at the necessary authorization level instead of flat-funding it.

The gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Gordon) amendment, however, recognizes the need for additional resources and calls for $129 million in fiscal year 2005 followed by a 10 percent yearly increase through fiscal 2008. This is not a time to shortchange American manufacturers when they need it most. Support the Gordon amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of this very important amendment.

After 9-11, the Federal Government called upon our States and locals to be even more vigilant and prepared for possible acts of terrorism in addition to their daily responsibilities to protect their communities from routine crime.

However, it doesn't make sense to put a whole lot more on their plates and then cut off the resources to help them meet these obligations. For example, this bill cuts the COPS program by more than 50 percent to $113 million.

That's why I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment to restore funding to the 2004 level--$237 million--for the COPs grant program.

We're not talking about a lot of money. In fact that's just a fraction of the $1 billion authorized that this chamber overwhelmingly approved in the DOJ reauthorization bill.

COPs has been repeatedly slashed over the years.

Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed with the lack of funds in COPs to provide local and State agencies assistance to upgrade their communications systems so they can talk to each other, no matter the jurisdiction or agency. The lack of interoperable communications was a key factor in why at least 121 firefighters died in the World Trade Center's Towers in 2001.

Last year, Congress provided $84 million in the COPS program for interoperability upgrades, That's not much compared to the $10 billion estimate to make our Nation's first responders fully interoperable.

But this year it was zeroed out. And that's exactly what happened in the Homeland Security appropriations bill this chamber approved last month.

Meanwhile, we know it will cost between $6 billion and $10 billion to make our Nation's public safety agencies and first responders interoperable.

Bottom line: There's an awful lot of talk around here about interoperability, but no real, reliable resources to help make that happen so agencies can talk to each other in times of a catastrophic disaster or terrorist attack.

So Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner-Keller- Stupak amendment to at least bring us back to where were last year.

A 50 percent cut to the COPs grant program is a slap in the face to the millions of police officers who work tirelessly to protect their communities every day.

Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on a bipartisan basis to support the amendment offered by my fellow New Yorker, Mr. Weiner, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, that would increase funds for the COPS program to last year's enacted level from what is currently more than a 50 percent cut.

Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, I have worked with countless Members on both sides of the aisle to restore and increase Federal funding for the COPS program. There are few programs that our government funds that work better or more efficiently than the COPS program does. Every day, our police men and women are patrolling our streets, keeping our constituents safe from crime and drugs, and have served as our first responders in times of national crises. Since implementation of the

COPS program in the 90s, our Nation's violent crime rate has plummeted, and at least some of this drop must be attributed to the number of officers put on our streets through the COPS program.

The amendment we are offering today is a modest request for maintaining last year's funding level of $219 million. While the program could definitely use more money, and is actually authorized for FY2005 at $1 billion, we must as a Congress put more highly qualified men and women on our streets and at least fund COPS at last year's level.

In closing, while these are tight budgetary times, I believe that funding law enforcement programs like COPS is a justified use of our limited resources.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner- Keller-Quinn amendment.