Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the many years of dedication and achievements of my good friend, Col. James E. Makowske, who after 25 years of active duty, retired April 16th, 2004 as Commander of the U.S. Air National Guard's Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center. Jim's leadership and decades of service to further the best interests of America and the Air National Guard have more than earned him this great honor.

Born in Detroit in 1956, Jim was raised in Capac and graduated from Capac High School in 1975. That year, he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and served for four years as an F-15 Aircraft Maintenance technician at Langley Air Force Base in the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing.

He separated from the Air Force in 1979 to attend Michigan State University where he earned his bachelors degree in engineering in 1982. The tug of service brought him back to enlist in the Michigan Air National Guard that year at Selfridge ANG Base. He received his commission in 1983 and his navigator wings in 1984. He served as a weapons system officer in the F-4, in the 191st Fighter Interceptor Group until 1988--the same year he completed his Master's Degree in Business Administration (MBA).

Jim transferred to the 110th Fighter Wing as the Chief of Engineering and Design in 1988. He then served as the Base Civil Engineer from 1989 to 1999 and concurrently served in the 110th Civil Engineer Squadron Commander starting in 1991. In 1999, he was assigned as the commander of the Alpena CRTC and was promoted to Colonel in March 2001.

Jim has also found time to serve the Alpena community. He has been a member of the Alpena Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors since 1999 and served as its president in 2003. He also has served on the Boards of the Boys and Girls Clubs, Target Alpena and is a member of the Alpena Rotary Club.

Jim is married to Carol Makowske (McIver) and has two children, Coral and Nathanial. Nathanial has continued the family tradition of military service when he enlisted last year in the Air National Guard in Battle Creek.

Mr. Speaker, Col. Jim Makowske's military career and service to our country can be characterized by putting the needs of others before his own. Our Nation, the State of Michigan and the Alpena Community have long benefited from his selflessness, and I ask you and my House colleagues to acknowledge his lifetime of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the good work of the local leaders in the county of Marquette, Michigan who have worked to make this First District community a great place to live. As a result of that hard work, Marquette County, located on the shores of Lake Superior, earlier today was named one of the ``America's Most Livable Communities,'' in the annual ranking by the Partners for Livable Communities, a national nonprofit whose prestigious list is published in USA Today.

The county of Marquette has been through soiree challenging times over the years. That includes its efforts to recover from the closure of K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base a decade ago that resulted in the loss of more than 1,000 civilian jobs as well as its work to keep its mining industry strong and competitive in the 21st Century.

But in recent years, the community of business leaders, government, clergy and education, through many task forces like the Lake Superior Community Partnership, have come together to move forward and develop innovative ways to strengthen this region.

The community boasts a state-of-the-art regional medical center in Marquette General Hospital. Marquette is also home to Northern Michigan University and its U.S. Olympic Education Center.

In addition, these partnerships have created new incentives to bring business to the area and it has provided them and residents with broadband services to ensure this smaller community can compete with its urban neighbors.

Marquette County is home to eight museums, an arts and cultural center, a symphony and provides four seasons of recreational opportunities, with some of the best mountain biking and cross-country ski trails in the country.

I would also like to note that Marquette County was named one of the 10 ``All-America Cities'' in 2003 by the National Civic League.

But probably most important of all, Marquette has an active and strong base of community leaders and volunteers who have worked together to make this county a great place to live. Some of those individuals were here in Washington D.C. to attend the special ceremony. They include: Monsignor Cappo of St. Peter's Cathedral, Marquette County Commissioner Bill Nordeen, Doreen Takalo, chair of the Marquette County Township Association, Karen Anderson of K.I. Sawyer, Bob Racia of Marquette General Hospital, Bill and Sue Rigby of Northern Michigan University, Marquette City Manager Gerald Peterson, Marquette Mayor Jerry Irby, Ishpeming Mayor Gary Nelson, John Mommarts of the Noquemanon Trail, Liz Smith of Project W.E.A.V.E. and Steward Harrison of Telkite.

Mr. Speaker, Marquette County has more than earned this great honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the achievements of Velma M. Webber Bouchard, who will be honored for her service to the cause of American working men and women with induction into the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame at a ceremony in Marquette, Michigan on April 17th.

Velma, who grew up in Luce County, began her outstanding service to workers of the U.P. and the Democratic Party in 1975. That was the year when she started her job at the Newberry Board of Water and Light and joined Local 2530, Council 55 (now Council 25) of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Her service in AFSCME includes a long list of leadership positions. She served as Local President for two years; Secretary-Treasurer for four years; Recording Secretary for three years; Delegate to the Eastern U.P. Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO for seven years and Vice- Chair of the U.P. AFSCME Political Action Committee.

Velma also traveled extensively through the region teaching Labor History and representation skills to AFSCME members. She served her local union in AFSCME Council level governance functions, periodically serving as a delegate from her local to the Council 55, 11 and 25 Annual Conventions, as well as being a delegate to the Michigan State AFL-CIO Conventions.

As a trade union leader, Velma spent time working to make her union even more effective by serving on the U.P. AFSCME Community Services Committee and by serving on the Union Women/Minorities Leadership Training Program Board during the 1980s.

Beyond her union, Velma's involvement in political activities is also a reflection of her nonstop efforts to protect and represent Michigan workers. Since 1988, she has served as Chair of the Luce County Democratic Party and served as its Vice-Chair before then. Velma has also been an Officer-At-Large of the Michigan Democratic Party for four years; was elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1992; and has served as an alternate delegate to the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee. During the Blanchard Administration, Governor Blanchard called upon Velma to take several appointments, including the Controlled Substance Advisory Committee and the International Trade Board.

Despite all of the time devoted to organized labor and politics, Velma still found time for civic duty. She is a lifetime member of American Legion Auxiliary Unit 74, serving as its President and District President. She has served as a member of the Michigan Selective Service Board No. 17 since 1985.

Velma retired from the Newberry Board of Water and Light in 1993 after 18 years. We cannot thank her enough for her endless energy and dedication fighting for the rights of Michigan workers.

I also want to acknowledge Joe King, Velma's good friend of many years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in acknowledging Velma Webber Bouchard's lifetime of contributions to organized labor and her community, and in celebrating the accomplishments that have earned her the distinction of becoming an honored member of the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifetime of achievements of my longtime friend Jon G. ``Jack'' LaSalle, who will be inducted into the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame at a ceremony in Marquette, Michigan on April 17th, 2004. Jack's decades of service to further the best interests of Michigan workers have more than earned him this great honor.

A native of Nahma Michigan, Jack is a 1971 graduate of Northern Michigan University. In June of that year, Jack began his apprenticeship as an Ironworker and became indentured and an apprentice member of Local 783, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Reinforcing and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. In 1975, he graduated from Apprentice School and became a Journeyman Iron Worker.

In 1973, with his local and International Union's support, Jack studied Industrial Relations at the University of Minnesota. During that time, Jack was the first and only apprentice of Local 783 to serve the local union as a member of the Bargaining Committee. After returning to the U.P. in 1974, Jack worked his trade until taking a Staff Representative position in 1975 with Council 55 (now Council 25), of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). In 1978, Jack took a position with the Michigan State AFL- CIO's Labor Employment and Development Program servicing the U.P. During his time at the state AFL-CIO, Jack took the lead in organizing the Eastern U.P. Central Labor Council and the Dickinson-Iron Counties Central Labor Council.

Jack was elected to office in the Marquette County Labor Council, AFL-CIO as Financial Secretary-Treasurer in 1976 and served for several terms. He also served seven years as President of the Labor Council and is currently its Recording Secretary.

Since the mid-1970's, Jack has also been very active in politics and worked on many campaigns, including being elected as a Morris Udall delegate to the 1976 Democratic National Convention and serving several terms on the Michigan Democratic Party's State Central Committee. He served 4 years as Chair of the 11th District Democratic Party and 3 years as Officer-At-Large of the Michigan Democratic Party. He also served as the Marquette County Field Coordinator for the Blanchard for Governor Campaign in 1982. Jack has been the Chair of the Marquette County Democratic Party since 2001.

Jack and Jeanne LaSalle have been active in every political campaign for the past 30 years. I am pleased and honored to have earned the support of the LaSalles in my own congressional campaigns.

In 1983, Jack was appointed by Governor James Blanchard to serve as Deputy Director of the newly opened Governor's Office for Job Training. In 1987, he was again appointed by Governor Blanchard to the Mackinac Bridge Authority and later became its Vice-Chair, serving on the Authority until 1994. Jack was also a State Board of Education appointee to the Michigan Occupational Information System (MOIS) Advisory Board in 1978, where he served for 13 years and as Chair for five years.

Instead of taking a much deserved break, Jack is currently serving his 19th year as a Field Representative for the Michigan State Building and Construction Trades Council, representing the U.P. and the Northern Lower Peninsula. In addition to being an active member of Ironworkers Local 8, Jack maintains memberships with the Industrial Workers of the World, the American Civil Liberties Union (since 1981) and many other political and progressive organizations championing the cause of workers.

I also want to recognize Jack's wife and partner, Jeanne, and all her sacrifice that allowed Jack to serve so many workers over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in acknowledging Jack LaSalle's lifetime of contributions to organized labor and his community, and in celebrating the accomplishments that have earned him the distinction of becoming an honored member of the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame.

Mr. Chairman, I have decided to vote in support for H.R. 3550 or the TEA-LU highway/transit reauthorization bill, but with reservations and with the hope that it will be addressed during the House-Senate conference.

I am pleased that this highway and transit reauthorization contains my requests on the may critically needed transportation projects for the First District.

However, this $275 billion bill still shortchanges Michigan in overall funding. It fails to include enough funding to ensure my state receives its fair share of highway funding.

Under the current highway authorization law, TEA-21, Michigan is a ``donor'' state. That means for every dollar Michigan taxpayers pay into the federal highway/transit fund--the state gets back only 90.5 cents in federal highway funding. The new reauthorization bill, TEA-LU, does not narrow this gap. Instead, it actually makes it worse by making the pot of money where this formula applies even smaller.

The $318 billion Senate bill, however, would gradually increase Michigan's rate of return on the dollar up to 95 cents by the end of FY 2009. That would be a vast improvement from the House version and I urge the joint House-Senate conference committee to accept the Senate version.

Congress needs to address this inequity to ensure Michigan receives a more equitable share of funding so it can better address and upgrade its highway and transit system as well as create much needed jobs in Michigan. For every $1 billion in highway and transit funding, that creates 47,500 new jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity, according to the House Budget Committee Minority Office.

Mr. Speaker, today the Congressional Rural Caucus held a forum on job losses in rural America. This is a critical issue in my district and in rural districts across the country. I would like to submit my comments on this issue for the Record.

I represent Michigan's 1st congressional district--the most rural district in Michigan. My constituents are all too familiar with job loss. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent--well over the national average. There are areas in my district where the unemployment rate actually exceeds 12 percent. 12 percent!

Since January 2001, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost across the country, 128,900 in Michigan alone. That is a loss of 1 out of every 6 factory jobs. In Michigan manufacturing is the engine of economic growth for our state--so you can see why the impact of rural job loss has been particularly devastating.

Manufacturing jobs seem to be heading out of Michigan to Mexico in droves. Recently, a refrigerator manufacturer, Electrolux, announced it is closing its doors and relocating to Mexico, costing us another 2,700 Michigan jobs. And just yesterday, Johnson Controls Inc., an automotive supplier in Holland, Michigan, announced its plans to move almost 900 jobs to Mexico.

We all know the problem, but what about a solution? We need to fix our international tax law that gives incentives to companies for shipping jobs overseas through tax credits and tax deferrals.

We need to fully fund programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that has successfully helped small manufacturers to modernize and stay competitive in the global marketplace. This program is essential to rural economic growth. But the Administration has proposed cutting it by 60 percent. That makes no sense when this country is hemorrhaging jobs.

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.

Last year, my Democratic colleagues from Michigan and I proposed the H.E.L.P initiative to assist in turning the economy around and getting people back to work. H.E.L.P focuses on employee healthcare and pension issues, as well as leveling the international playing field, and supporting partnerships with states, businesses, and employees which promote research and development.

In many of the communities in my district, hospitals and schools are among the largest employers. We need to keep hospitals open, and attract health care providers. We need to provide our rural schools with much needed tools such as broadband access and Internet classes. We need to attract small businesses. And we need to expand services for our seniors and veterans.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current budget proposals recently passed by the House and Senate are going to help get the 8 million jobless in our country back to work. We have a lot of work to do to jump start the economy.

I am glad the voices of our rural communities are being heard today. I look forward to hearing your recommendations on how to best address the problem of job loss in rural America.

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to welcome the nine new members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

For the last 55 years, the United States and its allies have worked through NATO to ``make the world safe for democracy.'' The accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to full NATO membership will further strengthen this alliance and enhance the security of the United States and all NATO countries.

I would like to extend an especially warm welcome to Slovakia. In the 107th Congress, I introduced, and the House passed, H. Res. 253 to commend the Slovak Republic for its progress toward political and economic liberty and efforts to meet the guidelines for prospective NATO members.

Slovakia, a once authoritarian regime, embraced a pro-Western government in 1998 and freed its citizens from international isolation. Since independence, the Slovak government has successfully held free and fair elections three times. In their last elections, over 70 percent of eligible voters turned out to express their newfound democratic right.

I am certain that as a member of NATO, Slovakia will contribute to the protection of member states and significantly benefit the security and peace of Europe and the region as a whole. Slovakia's leaders value their participation in our military alliance, and its citizens align themselves with NATO's common values and democratic mission.

The resolution we are voting on today ``reaffirms that NATO's enlargement enhances United States and North Atlantic area security, and agrees that NATO's enlargement should be open to membership by any European democracy that meets NATO membership criteria and whose admission would further the principles of the Washington Treaty of 1949 and enhance North Atlantic area security.''

I am proud to vote for this resolution, and I believe that Slovakia, and the other new members, will greatly enhance our alliance's security and further its principles. I am pleased to be able to welcome them to

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to join the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) in just talking a little bit about jobs and what needs to be done.

Those of us who have worked in many different aspects within the Democratic Party, we like to see different things done. It is not just simply a free trade issue, or it is not just a tax issue. It is a combination of things that are hurting this economy and hurting our States and the people we represent.

I come from the State of Michigan. We have already lost many, many jobs in Michigan, about 128,900 manufacturing jobs. Michigan is known as a manufacturing State because of the auto industry. But we have a total job loss of about 336,000 jobs, 128,000 in manufacturing alone.

Michigan continues to struggle. We need some help from the Federal Government; and we have to take a look at our fair trade agreements, as we call them. We also have to take a look at the tax structure in this country and what incentives are there to keep jobs staying here in this country.

Michigan, in the last few years, we have offered close to $1 billion to try to retain corporations and jobs in my home State of Michigan. Nationwide, we have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. Some analysts, as I believe the gentleman pointed out, believe we may lose as many as 14 million jobs in the U.S., or be at risk of going overseas.

To stop that hemorrhaging of job loss in this country, for whatever reason, the Committee on Ways and Means really should report out the Job Protection Act of 2004, also known as H.R.

3827, a bill with really strong bipartisan support.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, we are seeing these manufacturing jobs leaving this country, so we have put together a bipartisan bill. There are 182 Members who have signed on to a discharge petition. If the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means does not allow the bill to come before the House for a vote, the only way we can change that is to have 218 Members sign a discharge petition. We have 182 signatures right now.

We would like to see the Job Protection Act of 2004, a strong bipartisan bill, come before the floor. This bill would amend our tax laws to comply with the recent World Trade Organization rulings on the Foreign Sales Corporation benefit.

The Foreign Sales Corporation, that is a tax break for those corporations who sell their product overseas. When they come back to this country, it is not taxed. The World Trade Organization has said that is an unfair subsidy and should cease and desist. So we take care of that situation with the Foreign Sales Corporation, plus there are other tax benefits in there that do not encourage jobs to leave our shore, but actually keep them here in the United States.

It would revitalize our manufacturing base by lowering tax rates on all domestic producers, including small businesses and farms, by 3.5 percent. So as long as we keep it in the United States, keep them producing jobs here, we can lower some of that tax rate by 3.5 percent.

The proposal is fully paid for. We have enough deficits. We do not want to add to the deficit. We pay for this proposal, and it would not increase the deficit. We need to pass this bill, as millions and millions of Americans are relying upon it. Again, it is H.R. 3827, strong bipartisan support. We would like to see the bill moved.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) mentioned Senator Kerry. He has been on this issue. In fact this past weekend, Friday and Saturday, he was in my home State of Michigan. He has put forth a proposal to create jobs and stop the shipping of our jobs overseas.

He basically said, why do we continue to give tax rates to individuals and big multinational corporations in hopes they will create jobs? Why do we not give the tax break after you create the job? Produce and show results of a job, and we can then look at a tax break for your training, for your research, to put those people to work, give you back something for putting them back to work.

We spent a lot of time on manufacturing. Why is that so important? Recent studies have shown that a manufacturing job in this country pays on an average $44,000 a year. Now, service industry jobs, which we hear a lot about, it is a good profession, but, unfortunately, they are only paying about $24,000 a year for a job. Then, of course, you have the retail industry, that pays about $19,000.

So what happens to these people after they lose their manufacturing job at about $44,000 a year? Well, there is service industry at about $23,000, or $24,000, and then there is the retail industry at about $19,000. How do you ever make up for that lost income?

So Senator Kerry's plan addresses the problem in the tax system and makes sure we do not reward those companies that ship jobs overseas.

You take the Maytag Corporation. I was in Illinois about 2 years ago. Their profits were up 24 percent. Their profits for the year were $360 million. That is their profit after paying everything. But still Maytag, which made refrigeration units for refrigerators and freezers, still thought it was so important to go to Mexico, where you pay about $1.50 an hour; and our Tax Code, which Senator Kerry wants to change, would actually pay them $30 million in tax credits if they shipped or moved to Mexico.

So, first of all, their profits are $360 million; they were up 24 percent from the previous year. It is not that they were hurting. But still they felt it necessary to move out of Illinois, probably paying $15 or $18 an hour, to Mexico, where they are paying about $1.50, and then our government is going to give them another $30 million tax break on top of that. That is just plain wrong.

So Senator Kerry's plan would end these tax breaks that allow these companies to keep their earnings overseas and avoid paying U.S. taxes.

The indefinite deferral of paying taxes amounts to the U.S. taxpayer of about $8 billion a year to these companies investing abroad. That is according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

So think about it. We are using taxpayer money and giving them $8 billion to invest overseas, plus we are left with people who lost good- paying jobs with no recourse where to go with it. So the taxpayers are paying for them to go invest overseas, plus we have to take care of the unemployed workers.

The tax system has ability in incentive to ship jobs overseas. That has to change. We need to help out manufacturers and small business. Unfortunately, we have just seen the President's budget. We had debate on it last week.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which has been used greatly in my district for Horner Flooring up in Dollar Bay, or Jacquart Fabric Products over at Ironwood, Michigan, that was cut by two-thirds. It went from $111 million to $39 million. That has helped our people to take care of jobs and try to ship their product overseas. Unfortunately, that program has been cut.

So I think the administration just has it backwards. We have to do something differently. It is not just the free trade agreements; it is the tax incentives built into our Tax Code.

It is also what we call HELP. The State of Michigan has been devastated, as we mentioned, about manufacturing, so we actually put together a program called HELP, which we sent to the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Evans, and said, look at this proposal.

It is a lengthy proposal, but HELP really means, first, let us address health care needs. Every American should have the right to have health care. You take Ironwood Plastics, a small company up in my district. They were going to expand their plant, but they found their health care costs went up so much in the last 2 years, they cannot add on their plant. In fact, for every product they produce, 42 cents of it is just for fringe benefits; and they do not have lucrative fringe benefits. Health care is probably 60 to 70 percent of that 42 cents on every piece they make. It is just to pay for the health care in this country. We have to get a handle on health care prescription drug costs.

That is the first part of ``H'' in HELP.

Unemployment compensation. Why is it that past years when we have had these downturns in the economy, in my state of Michigan we are at 6.6 unemployment, some parts of my district fall over 12 percent unemployment. Federal Government works the area with the States. The States have a program. We do 26 weeks of unemployment, but we have always extended it another 13 weeks. Unfortunately, we have not done that.

While people are unemployed through no fault of their own, we should be there to help them out to see them through those rough spots and keep them working and keep their health care going.

Level playing field. The third letter in HELP. ``L'' for level playing field. On these trade barriers, I am always amazed that we see these trade agreements, take the CAFTA plan, which is the Central America Free Trade Agreement, which will devastate the sugar industry in my State of Michigan, which is a half billion dollar industry, if Central America is allowed to bring their sugar into this country. They all do now. But if one takes down all barriers and it can freely flow into this country, it will wipe out the sugar beet industry in Michigan.

The sad part about that is, while we immediately lower our barriers in this country, it takes about 15 years for other countries to lower their barriers. Plus they put up these artificial trade barriers depending on the value of their currency, the environmental standards, their employment standards of their workers. Why can't we have a level playing field?

If it is truly going to be a global economy, and I was here back in 1993 through the NAFTA debates, which I did not support NAFTA because I felt it would hurt this country overall. But

when you take a look at it, in NAFTA and all the rest of it, if we are going to have a global economy, and that was the buzzword back in 1993, some 11, 12 years ago, then should not we really have global standards on workers' rights, on the environment, how we treat each other's currency so you do not have these artificial trade barriers for our products from the U.S. going to these other countries? So that is the third letter in our help program.

Last but not least, P for pensions. In this country we are funding pensions. Many people feel we are overfunding them. Some are underfunded. But we have to look at pension reform. There has been a bill that we tried to pass out of the House. It has been stuck in the Senate. We can do some work here and make this pension system fair to the workers, guarantee the benefit, but at the same time allow the companies to use it for research and development. That would free up some money so they can do their research, development, and investment in their countries. It just makes sense.

Training. We have to invest in this country. So there are so many needs, and one can just see what happens and in State after State, whether it is Washington, Florida, or Michigan.

Just one more: Electrolux, which was really a sort of French company that had been in Michigan for many, many years, besides making great vacuum cleaners, they also did refrigeration. They just announced it is closing its doors and going to Mexico also. It will cost Michigan 2,700 jobs.

We are losing about 2,000 jobs in Michigan just in the manufacturing section. Our governor, who is very concerned about it, has put together an aggressive manufacturing agenda to try to help companies. Our governor even offered Electrolux a new $30 million building, $182 million in tax credit, including a Renaissance Zone that would allow the company to operate virtually free of State and local taxes for up to 20 years.

There was even changes from the United Auto Workers that they said, look, we do not want to lose these jobs. It is good-paying jobs. We will change our labor agreement. We will give about $31 million in concessions. But still the company still saw it lucrative to go to Mexico with the tax breaks they would get from the U.S. taxpayers and the low-wage-paying jobs in Mexico.

Electrolux was a very profitable company. It pays $13 to $15 an hour plus benefits, and that included health care to its employees. So why are they moving? Because they can go down to Mexico and pay people $1.57 an hour.

Like I said, Michigan has lost about 128,900 manufacturing jobs since January of 2001. We have a total job loss in our State of 335,868 in Michigan, despite offering almost $1 billion in tax incentives for companies to stay.

So I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) tonight. I think my colleague said it best earlier when he said it is not just trade agreements, there are tax issues, there are employment issues, there are a number of issues we should tackle as a Congress.

I will go back and just repeat that. The Job Protection Act of 2004, H.R. 3827, a bipartisan bill. We have 182 Members who signed a discharge petition. I wish the majority in this Congress would allow to us bring that bill to the floor. If the majority party, the Republican party, want to vote against it, that is certainly their right. But at this critical time in our Nation's history, manufacturing jobs leaving, why cannot we have a good debate on the issue?

Maybe this tax break is not quite right. I am not saying we have all the answers, but let us at least get a debate going. Let us exchange ideas. Because we have to look at trade agreements, Tax Code, and other incentives we have out there that encourage people to leave offshore or go offshore with their corporations.

So I stand with Senator Kerry and my colleagues tonight and we look forward to a day when we invest in companies for keeping jobs here in the United States and not shipping them overseas, providing health care for all our workers so it is not such a burden on just strictly the employer, and reexamine these trade laws and make sure we all play by the same rules.

America can compete with anybody anywhere in this world. We are just looking for a level, fair, playing surface on trade agreements.

I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for once again yielding. I thank him again for stepping forth and organizing this special order tonight. It is always a pleasure to join with the gentleman and look forward to working with him on this and other issues in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that one. Our sugar producers and the Michigan Farm Bureau have come out against it because we do not have that big of a sugar industry. It is only a $500 million industry. But they feel with it coming in, and my colleague is right, over 15 years, the barriers would fall down. That would just about do the end of our sugar in Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague is right on that issue because we are concerned about it in Michigan. We look forward to my colleague's leadership on that issue to make sure we preserve our sugar industry in Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, Michigan has one of the highest unemployment figures in the country, and that figure continues to rise. Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, the Upper Peninsula's jobless rate is 8.6 percent, and Northeast Lower Michigan's jobless rate is 12.4 percent.

But the Republican budget does nothing to create jobs here at home or end incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. It cuts small business investment and fails to extend unemployment insurance for millions of jobless Americans, including 335,868 unemployed residents of Michigan. And it includes new tax cuts--while our nation's checkbook sinks deeper in the red--with a $531 billion deficit.

I offered proposals that were rejected along partisan lines by the Rules Committee that would have put fiscal sanity into our budgeting process. My amendment said, no new tax cuts unless we have a surplus that can pay for it and no tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

Yes, we have to make hard choices given the record deficits we have today. However, I cannot choose tax cuts over the priorities of the working families and seniors of Michigan. At town hall meetings and in letters, my constituents tell me: protect our jobs and manufacturers, protect our Social Security and Medicare, fund education, provide affordable health care and make our communities safer. This budget shortchanges all of those priorities. Here are just two examples:

Michigan's Medicaid rolls have increased by almost 30 percent in the past four years. But this budget cuts Medicaid by $2.2 billion, while including a $46 billion dollar give-away to HMO's.

In Michigan, 128,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the beginning of 2001. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program has been highly successful in helping small Michigan manufacturers to modernize and stay competitive in the global marketplace. MEP has directly helped companies in my district including Horner Flooring of Dollar Bay and Jacquart Fabric Products in Ironwood, Michigan.

Rather than support the Republican blue-print, which makes an expanding deficit worse and under-funds veterans programs, health care, education, and first-responder programs, I support the Democratic and Blue Dog Democrat alternatives. Both combine fiscal responsibility with help for our working families. Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic and Blue Dog alternatives would get us back on track to a balanced budget and include a ``pay as you go'' budget enforcement mechanism. Both plans repeal the marriage penalty and provide for a child tax credit that working families depend on during these uncertain economic times. And both make key investments in our job training, small business, health care, education, and veterans.

It is clear to me that these alternatives better reflect the values of Americans and the residents of the First District of Michigan, will create more jobs, and will restore fiscal discipline to Washington that I know the people of Michigan want and expect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call your attention and that of our House colleagues to a ceremony that will take place in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan on August 9, 2004. While the Baraga County Fair goes on, the Pelkie Agricultural School along with the original seven one-room country school houses of the Pelkie area, will be celebrating with all their alumni.

In the NW corner of the Upper Peninsula there is the small town of Pelkie where a hidden treasure lay. The treasure built in 1932 is known as Pelkie Agricultural School, and is perhaps one of the oldest schools of its kind in Michigan or even in the United States still operating as an educational institution. The community looks forward to hosting the event and reuniting with old friends, teachers and classmates.

The Pelkie area was originally settled by Finnish immigrants in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century. As late as the mid-1970's one could walk into the local Co-op Store and hear the Finnish language spoken, or attend an area church service on Sunday conducted in the Finnish language. In the early years, seven one-room country school houses served the educational needs of the Pelkie area children, and then in 1932 the Pelkie Agricultural

School was built to consolidate these schools. For the first ten years or so, Pelkie Agricultural School operated as a K-10 school with an agricultural focus. The concepts of agriculture (for boys) and home economics (for the girls) were articulated and integrated into all aspects of the curriculum.

In the mid-1940's, the school began the first of many changes caused by declining enrollment and dwindling finances. The school first changed to a K-8 school and then eventually a K-6 school. As innovations and curriculum changes occurred in Michigan education, Baraga Township decided to implement a new and innovative concept. Eventually this lead to the designation of the school as a lower elementary building for the entire district. The elementary school is currently filled to capacity and wisely used by the district.

When asked what role the school plays in the community, a local resident responded that the school was and continues to be the center of the community. It is the place for all community activities except church services. MSU Extension Study Clubs, 4-H Clubs, physical fitness programs, preschool programs, Agricultural Extension meetings, as well as the Baraga County fair are held there. Everyone has fond memories from their times at Pelkie Agricultural School and the community takes pride in doing everything they can to keep the school in good condition.

Over the years, the school has provided many important needs for the community including educational programs for soldiers after WWII. The school received federal funding under the GI bill to offer educational services and training in agriculture to area men returning home after the war. Five teachers dedicated themselves to teaching night classes to returning GIs in efforts to help them become productive independent farmers on the land that their Finnish forefathers had cleared a generation earlier.

The caliber of education offered at Pelkie Agricultural School is revealed through their many distinguished alumni. For forty-four years, Mrs. Ida Fitzpatrick, one of the school's teachers and its principal, directed the education of community youth. The school has produced many farmers, professors, traders, musicians, teachers, writers, and doctors. Among those we can cite as having attended Pelkie Agricultural School are Dr. LuAnne Ruona, psychiatrist and faculty member at George Washington University, Dr. Paul Niemisto, a professor and composer of music at St. Olaf's University, and Mr. Dan Maki, professor of History at Finlandia University. I am proud of their commitment to education and their contribution to their individual professions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our House colleagues to join me in wishing the best to the people of Pelkie in celebrating 70 years of education at Pelkie Agricultural School and the seven original one-room country school houses. We also extend a hearty, ``Well Done!'' to the Reunion Planning Committee. I am sure that many former Pelkie residents will be drawn back home for this celebration, so that families may be reunited, old friendships renewed, and a remarkable quality of life rediscovered.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the valiant service from our men and women in our Armed Services. That's why I am disappointed that the House leadership decided to present this toothless resolution rather than provide real assistance for our troops.

They say this resolution is meant to thank the American military men and women serving in Iraq. But if they truly wanted to honor these soldiers--this same leadership should have supported my amendment last year that would have given every American soldier serving in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus. But it failed with 210 Republicans voting against it.

The President is traveling across the country to mark the war's anniversary and thank our troops. Yet his budget cuts Veterans health benefits--just like last year. Some thanks!

I support this resolution. But let's be clear: this resolution won't save any lives; it won't provide adequate body armor and armored humvees to our troops any quicker; it doesn't repair the damage done to our reputation in the international community, it won't bring our troops home any sooner and it won't heal a single wound or restore a single American life lost in Iraq.

The resolution also fails to answer some key questions:

Why did this Administration mislead the American people 237 times in their statements about the so-called immediate threat from Iraq? As Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania stated, ``never have so few, misled so many.''

Why did this Administration say that reconstruction would only cost Americans $1.7 billion and that other countries and Iraqi oil would cover the rest? Instead American taxpayers have paid billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq--and the tab is likely to increase in the next year.

To date, we have spent more than $150 billion in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, more than 560 soldiers have died in Iraq and another 5,300 have been injured. We owe it to them, to their families and to all Americans to level with them and given them the straight answers on why we went into Iraq and how long it will take to get the job done.

Like all Americans, I am proud of our Americans soldiers in Iraq who are serving their country with dedication and courage. But I am not proud of those in the Administration that may have misled our great Nation into war.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has denied me and other Democrats the opportunity to offer amendments that are vital and directly relevant to the debate on eliminating indecent content on the public airwaves.

Americans should look at the link between the surge in complaints on indecent content on TV and radio and the increasing media consolidation that has occurred in recent years.

During the Committee on Energy and Commerce's three hearings on Indecency in the Media, it became apparent it is the media giants who are the greatest offenders of the FCC's indecency standard. The biggest FCC fines have gone to the biggest media players. In the past 5 years, 80 percent of the fines on violations of the FCC indecency standard were handed out to the media conglomerates.

I believe the increasing amount of indecent content on our public airwaves is a symptom of media consolidation, but the FCC never bothered to look at this possible link before they issued new rules last year to allow these media giants to get even bigger. The Parents Television Council noted this as well. Director Brent Bozell said after the FCC issued the new rules allowing more media consolidation, and I would like to quote him, he said, ``The rules change means that a handful of megaconglomerates will impose their own standards of decency. They have been handed unfettered opportunity to broadcast violent and vulgar programming with impugnity.''

My amendment would have delayed the FCC rules on media consolidation while the GAO conducted a thorough review of the correlation between indecent content on our public airwaves and media consolidation.

I had also offered a pared-down amendment that would have authorized a study without delaying the rules. I will still be seeking the GAO study, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this request I will be making later today.

The growing number of media monopolies is relevant to this indecency debate, and the Committee on Rules should not have denied me and others the opportunity to offer our amendments. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule until we get the amendments that will help us further this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of rural veterans and in support of H.R. 2379, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for his leadership on this issue.

No veteran should ever have reason to doubt America's gratitude for his or her service to the Nation and to the cause of freedom. America's veterans deserve nothing less than our highest gratitude, our deepest respect, and our strongest support. Veterans from rural areas, like my district, deserve nothing less than their comrades living in more populated areas.

Michigan's First Congressional District has the highest population in any congressional district in Michigan. There are 65,000 veterans in my district, one-fifth of all the veterans in the State of Michigan.

They live over a huge area. The Upper Peninsula alone spans 450 miles from east to west. While the VA provides wonderful care in northern Michigan, it is far too hard for veterans to access health care. Recently, a Vietnam veteran from the Upper Peninsula had to go to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the treatment that he needed. Milwaukee is a long way from home, so our veterans go as far as the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center, and they spend the night there. The next day they are put on a bus and they are shipped down to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And that is repeated once their treatment is done, whether it is 1, 2 or 3 days. They are put back on a bus, they go back to Iron Mountain, Michigan, and then they spend the night and go on home.

It is outrageous that they have to travel so many miles, in some case 450 miles, just to get treatment. At best the distance is an inconvenience. At worst, it puts veterans' lives at serious risk. I had another case where a retired Navy veteran from Sault Ste. Marie had surgery at the VA Medical Center in Milwaukee to treat his cancer. After surgery, he was transported via van all of the way back to Sault Ste. Marie, 379 miles away. The next morning, his spouse had to take him to the emergency room in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and the emergency room could not help him. The nearest VA medical center in Iron Mountain could not help him either, so he had once again to be shipped by ambulance 379 miles down to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have veterans being shipped back and forth across state lines. It is dangerous, and it is just not right. These two constituents represent the challenges faced every day by rural veterans across this country. Congress needs to act to address the specific needs of rural veterans. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2379, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act of 2003. The legislation would allow veterans to enroll in an option to seek routine health care closer to home.

H.R. 2379 sets aside 5 percent of each VA region's medical care allocation to be used for routine medical care for highly rural or geographically remote veterans. The legislation would allow rural veterans to be closer to their health care providers, rather than traveling hundreds of miles for an appointment at the VA, which could be especially dangerous during inclement weather.

In Michigan, I will also continue to work to open a community-based outpatient clinic in Gladstone. Over 2 years ago, the VA announced to open the CBOC, as we call them, in Gladstone. Yet during every successive round of CBOC openings across the country, somehow our region just cannot seem to get Gladstone funded. It is estimated a Gladstone CBOC would provide much needed basic health care to our veterans, in fact, to approximately 750 veterans alone in its first year of operation. This facility is critical towards keeping our promise to those who serve our country so well.

I think today, Americans have a deeper understanding of the sacrifices of our military personnel than at any time in recent history. Our commitment to veterans must be more than just waving the American flag in times of armed conflict and recognizing them on national holidays. We owe it to our veterans to do more. We must be prepared to take their battle-borne scars of war and military service throughout their lifetime, and make sure they have the quality of service they need.

Today I was visited by a couple from Chassel, Michigan, representing the VFW. They handed me the VFW's priorities for the coming year. We can see here the VFW priority goals for 2004. It says veterans health care now, we earned it. If you look at it, it says the number one priority of veterans is health care. They say underfunding of the VA budget, 6-month waits to see a doctor, denial of care to category 8 veterans, little or no long-term care, little or no mental health care, and millions of fed-up veterans.

Well, those of us who represent rural areas, and no matter where veterans are, we believe they should be taken care of. There are special challenges for rural veterans, and we stand here tonight to urge this Congress to pass H.R. 2379 to take care of all of our veterans, but especially those of us who have veterans who live in our rural districts.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the President's State of the Union address last night. From where I was sitting, my perspective, I am from Michigan, from the northern half, and I was really surprised that the President never mentioned the urban areas of this country. About 60 percent of the people in this country live in cities. He did not articulate any type of a plan or approach to help those areas that are dealing with many, many problems. Especially since the National Conference of Mayors is in town this week, I thought at least there would be some mention about urban areas: what can we do to help them with their urban sprawl, with infrastructure needs, green space, or even just helping them cope with these homeland securities which cost these cities millions of dollars. When we get elevated from yellow to orange or orange to red, whatever system they are using now, it costs them a lot of money. The cities, like the States right now, are financially strapped for cash. How do they pay for this? If it is a requirement of the Federal Government, should we not just help them out? I was surprised that he did not touch on the cities.

I was also very, very surprised, and maybe it is the record of this administration, that he did not even mention veterans. Why would he not mention veterans? We are creating veterans every day in this country with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he never even mentioned them. Probably because we saw proposed $20 billion cuts in veterans health over the next 10 years; that is what his budget proposal shows. It would really eliminate and cap the number of veterans who can access the VA system. We have a cap on it right now because there is not enough money in the system. So maybe the President did not want to talk about veterans because his record in that area has not been very good.

So I would hope that we in this upcoming Congress can put a little more attention on the veterans issues. The Democratic Party and the Democrats in their response, and others, I saw coming up with bold new ideas on how to move this country forward. As the gentleman from New Jersey was saying, some of the stuff we have heard over the last 3 years was just warmed over and put in the State of the Union; but we have different ideas, bold ideas, new ideas that I think are important. It would be my hope that in this session of Congress, Democrats and Republicans can work together to move forward some of these initiatives.

Some of the initiatives that the President did bring up did tweak my interest, let us say, like the health insurance. The gentleman and I both sit on the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and we have both spent a lot of time on that. Homeland security, I thought we would hear more about that, like fully equipping the first responders, the police, the fire, the emergency medical people.

Increased protection on the border. I come from northern Michigan, right there at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, crossing back and forth to Canada. Before September 11, most of our stations were not manned 24 hours a day. We have made some increases. We have more immigration officers, more Customs officials, more border patrols, they are all now under Homeland Security. But what happened was we put money out there to increase the number of people there; but last Labor Day, the first part of September, they were laying people off. They were supposed to be protecting our borders.

So I wish the President would have spent a little more time saying, look, there are some things we should do in homeland security, especially those of us who have a northern or southern border. It is critically important to us. We know all the cargo ships and containers that come into this country by ship or plane or trucks, we are only inspecting 2 to 3 percent of that cargo. We can do better than that with all of the modern technology and equipment we have. It does not cost that much.

There is no reason why we cannot implement a program. We have the technology. We sat through those hearings where they have shown us the technology to look for biological, radiological weapons and environmental weapons that may be in these containers. Why are we not doing it? If we want to talk about really being safe, that is one area we could improve. I mean, a 2 to 3 percent inspection, that means 97 to 98 are going through uninspected, really makes us susceptible to any kind of an attack, bioterrorist, chemical, or nuclear in this country.

So the Democrats have also put forth a proposal to do this, to increase that. That is not asking that much. We even know the cost of these machines, like big x-ray machines that can scan cargo holds and cargo containers. Why are we not talking about that if we want to really be secure here at home?

Taking a look at the economy and jobs, with all due respect to the President, more tax cuts is not going to solve this problem. In the last 3 years, if we take a look at the total package of the tax cuts that have been passed by this Congress, it is about $2 trillion. And if they really created jobs, our economy would not be in the slump we have.

Take my State of Michigan, we are a manufacturing State, and we have been hit terribly under these Bush economic policies. Since the President took office, and I am going back now to August of last year when they claimed we had this big increase in the third quarter of last year, well, in my State of Michigan we lost over 130 manufacturing jobs. They are not coming back. Those jobs like Electrolux in Greenville, Michigan, they are going south. They are going south of us. They are taking their tax cuts, and they are going to Mexico and other areas; and it is going to take out about 2,700 jobs in the little town of Greenville, Michigan. Throughout my district, there has been a number of them who have lost jobs. They go south. We have lost 130 manufacturing jobs. Let us face it, they are not coming back.

The President said, well, this tax increase would create these jobs. If we take a look at it, going back to my State of Michigan, 46 percent of the people received less than $100 with the last Bush tax cut. How does that help anyone, and how does that create new jobs?

Mr. Speaker, we have so many needs in this country, and the Democrats have come up with a proposal to stimulate this economy, to get jobs moving. We actually put forth a proposal, never were we allowed to bring it to the floor for a vote, because the Democratic proposal was a good one. We supported targeted tax cuts. There should be some for middle class and working families, you bet you. We are there and willing to do it. But our economic and tax cut plan would have created 1 million jobs immediately. How were we going to do that? Invest back in our infrastructure, our port security that I spoke of; and we would have done this by taking money out of the trust funds and not add one penny to the deficit, not one penny to the deficit, but create a million jobs, invest here at home, invest in our airports, our water ports, to protect them from terrorism; and we could create jobs doing that; and, again, we would not have added anything to this deficit which is exploding out of sight.

Democrats do have a better way.

There are a number of things that we can and should be doing. We are willing to work with the President, but they also have to be willing to work with us. By that I mean the gentleman from New Jersey spoke a lot about the Medicare bill with the prescription drug plan. We notice when we had those hearings and we had, they call it the conference committee, no Democrats were ever invited to it; we were not even told when they were. So it was not like we got together; we were not even invited to the table to discuss it. In the House here, the person who probably knows more about Medicare and prescription drugs is the gentleman from my home State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He has been here

and been involved in every Medicare bill since Medicare was created in 1965; he was not even included in the discussions or even asked his ideas.

So these proposals, we are willing to work with them, but they have to include us. The tax cut bills, we were not included on that. The Medicare bill, the energy bill which failed in the Senate, we were not included on that. We need better understanding, and we need a better working relationship with this White House and with the majority party in this Congress.

The gentleman from New Jersey mentioned prescription drugs and the Medicare plan. Just getting access to prescription drugs is a battle for many of us. If we take a look at it, our plan, the Democrat plan basically said, use the purchasing power of the Federal Government to help lower these costs; in fact, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Thompson, negotiate a lower drug price for us so we can pass it on to the 40 million recipients in Medicare so it does not cost them so much. The bill passed by Republicans expressly prohibited it. The bill also expressly prohibits the Secretary or average Americans from going to Canada or Europe to get lower cost prescription drugs.

One are forbidden from doing it. If one are really interested in lowering the cost for the American people and for our seniors, these two common sense approaches, why is not that part of the Medicare bill to keep the cost down?

And I bring up this Medicare and prescription drugs because the President said last night he will give tax incentives to help people to afford health insurance. Well, that is wonderful, but we need some incentives to keep those costs down. If he did not allow us to come together to lower the cost, negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, is he really going to allow in the bill the associated health plans to allow businesses to come together to negotiate lower prices down? If we look at the track record, the answer is no. If we are not going to do it on prescription drugs, why would we suddenly want to do it on these associated health plans.

If one really takes a look at the associated health plans, why are they somewhat popular? Well, because underneath the associated health plans, there are two major problems. They do not necessarily come and band together. Each small business in that plan is its own entity and can lead it or drop it whenever they want. So we cannot guarantee that unity, the cohesiveness would stay there.

The second big problem with these associated health plans that the President brought up is that small employers, besides cut and run for a better deal, they do not have to follow state mandates. Every State says, look, if you offer health insurance in our State, here are some basic rules you have to follow, basic things we want you to do: Prenatal coverage, mental health coverage, immunization coverage, emergency room access, things like that.

These associated health plans that the President brought up last night they do not have to do that. They work outside the State requirements. So they can pick and choose in this State we do not want to offer this or maybe we do not want to do a prenatal care. Maybe we do not want the mental health part of it.

So one is paying a lot of money for half a plan as dictated by the insurance industry and not the needs of the people in that State in which one is selling that insurance.

I like the ideas that the President brought up. If they are willing to work with us, I am sure we can work out some ideas. Democrats believe that a health care coverage plan should include all Americans. We believe the health care coverage should be continuous, that one is not wondering from year to year am I going to have the coverage, but there should be a continuation of coverage.

We believe health care coverage has to be affordable for families and individuals. We believe that health insurance should also be something as a society we all can afford.

And last, but not least, we should also make sure that health insurance actually promotes health and well-being like prevention programs, prenatal care, and access to high quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, and patient-centered and is equitable, people are getting a reasonable return for the money they are spending on health insurance. I do not think that is asking too much.

These are some old ideas that are Democrats are willing to put forth: Accessible health insurance, affordable health insurance, make sure it is adequate to meet the needs of the society one is trying to serve and will always be there in the future so someone is not cut as soon as they have a claim.

So, again, we are willing to work with the President, but he has to reach out to include us.

It was interesting, we talked some more about it when the President was talking about the energy bill and how we should do this. And I think he said, if I quote him right, he said something like ``I urge you to pass legislation to promote conservation.'' I notice he did not say, ``I urge you to pass an energy bill that is also concerned about our environment.'' That was left out. I did not find the environment anywhere in the President's nine pages, this little book that we received with his remarks in there. Probably because in the last couple years, we have been fighting on the floor to keep a strong Clean Air Act, keep a Clean Water Act, protect our national forests and oppose drilling in ANWR and some of these other areas, and fully fund Superfund, which cleans up and reinstates the polluter-pay principle, one of the things we all believe in.

But that Superfund, unfortunately, we used to get a royalty off the oil and gas drilling in this country and a percentage of that would go and fund Superfund. Well, since the new party took over, the majority took over in 1995, we have not put any money in the Superfund. And there are many Superfund sites in the Great Lake State of Michigan. We have many Superfund sites around the State, around our Great Lakes that should be cleaned up.

So if one is going to talk about energy policy, let us restore enough money for that energy policy. At least fund the Superfund to clean up Superfund sites and reinstate the polluter-pay principle. I think that is something we should all be able to agree with at least in principle.

I was disappointed also when the President said the No Child Left Behind Act is opening doors to opportunity to all of America's children. But as we know too often, and ask any school administrator, the Federal Government with the Leave No Child Behind did not fully fund it. For instance, Title I has a shortfall of billions of dollars.

If one takes a look at this last budget, to meet the requirements of this new testing that the President spoke of and all these other requirements that Leave No Child Behind Act, we should fund these programs. We are putting regulations on these schools. They are expected to perform, but yet they are not receiving Federal money to do this. While he may have increased funding for education, it has not kept pace with requirements that the Leave No Child Behind Act is requiring our schools to do. So we would like to see it fully funded.

And I also believe the other thing we should do if we are going to fully fund education from K through 12 is IDEA, Individual Disabilities Education Act. IDEA, the Federal Government passed that before this President was in office, and it was also a promise the Federal Government would fund it at 40 percent. At best, we are funding it at 18 to 19 percent. We are not even funding half of what we promised to fund when it came to K through 12 education. So, again, I think the ideas are there, but one has to put the funding there.

If one is going to do education, if we don't want to leave a child behind, if we want to test them to see if they are meeting the skills, give the schools the resources to adequately do it and not short change them. Unfortunately, that is what has happened in the last few years. In the last fiscal year we are short $8 billion nationwide to fund education.

I do not disagree with what the President says but let us fully fund the education. So I really think that the President put forth some ideas. I think they fall short in some areas. We are willing to work with him, the Republican party, the majority party in this

House, but they have to include us in some of these programs.

Democrats do have a better way. We do want to see a number of things happen. We want to see, like, homeland security. We talked a little bit about that. But let us fully fund our first response people. Let us improve our domestic nuclear security and protect our communities against a terrorist attack. We can do this by doing inspection of cargo. It is something so simple that we could do, the technology is there. We even know the cost.

We have sat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and we have laid out the cost and how much every one of these machines are, how many port of entries we have. We have close to 400 in this country where cargo comes in through ships from other countries. We know where. We know what the cargo is. Let us detect and make sure there is nothing coming in here. I think that is of even greater importance now as we have increased activity around this world in terrorism. And it is something we should be able to do. There is no reason why we cannot.

There are so many other things we could do. Like I said, I was really surprised that the President did not even mention them in the State of the Union address. Democrats we believe that we should ensure full payment of both retirement and a disability compensation to a half a million disabled American veteran retirees. We should do that immediately. Right now the way the law is if one has a military disability pension and a retirement from them, they deduct dollar for dollar if one is receiving disability from their retirement pay. They have earned both of them. They should be fully funded. Why could not we do that for them?

We should fully fund the veterans health care. We should permit an increase in bonuses for soldiers in combat. This is interesting. We had the motion on the Floor here during our debate on the $87 billion for Iraq to provide a $1,500 bonus for every man and woman who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. $1,500 out of $87 billion. That tied 213-213 and the amendment did not pass. I could not believe it.

And here we are talking about the great job our men and women in the armed services are doing for us. And they do. But give them a little bonus. Most, and I should say a large number of people in Iraq are from the Reserves and the National Guard, they left their good paying civilian jobs when their country called upon them to go fight in Iraq. So we want to give them a $1,500 bonus to help ease that financial concern at home. And it ended up in a tie in the U.S. House of Representatives. I cannot believe it. That was basically a party line vote. The President and the administration and Republican party will not support us so it ended up in a tie.

There are so many more things we could do. Democrats do have bold new ideas. We would like to be part of the process. We urge the majority party and the President to work with us. We have a new year here, a new session just starting. We look forward to working with them. But as I said earlier, when we have these conferences and these ideas coming through Congress, all we ask is for an opportunity to have our amendments put forth before this floor, put together a substitute that we would be allowed to vote on. But, unfortunately, as we have seen on these major issues like Medicare, energy bill, the appropriations bills, we are just completely excluded.

That is almost unheard of in a country of this stature which is a true democracy that the minority party, in this case Democrats, representing 49 percent of the country, are not even allowed to put forth the proposals or amendments on the House floor. I know that upsets a lot of people and certainly upsets all of us.

Even if we do not have the votes to pass it, at least let our new ideas come forth on this Floor and be argued and debated and let the American people make up their mind on this legislation.

So I pleased to come down here and join my colleague. I look forward to doing that throughout the year as we have in the past working on this. There are other issues, and I look forward to working with him on them.

We have an opportunity, and I hope the President and his party will work with us, so we can move this country forward because the economy is not where we want it to be. We are struggling. As I said, Michigan alone lost the most manufacturing jobs of any State. We are hurting back in Michigan. We need some help.

There are some things we can do, but another tax cut is not going to jump-start our economy in Michigan. It may be good for Wall Street, but it is not very good for Main Street where we do create the jobs. We have heard it so many times in the media that this is a jobless recovery. Well, the economy seems to be looking good on Wall Street. And IRAs and even 401(k)s and other things may look a little better, but for folks back home they are not employed, they are not working, it is not helping them.

In Michigan, at the last tax cut we got less than $100. 46 percent of the people in Michigan got less than a $100 in the last Bush tax cut. It is not going to help us out. Let us put some people back to work immediately. Adopt the Democratic plan which says we can put a million people back to work immediately by working in infrastructure, roads, bridges, port security, airport security, without adding to the deficit. We can do it by taking money out of the trust funds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman spoke a little bit about the trade agreements. Now they are trying to push the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. In the past year we have done the Chilean Trade Agreement, Singapore. We have done a number of them, but yet we still see jobs leaving this country.

When we talk about it, everybody says, well, we will enforce the laws that are on the books, but look at what just happened with steel. The International Trade Commission found unanimously, six-nothing, that there was illegal dumping of steel goods in this country. By illegal dumping I mean they are selling it in this country at less than what it cost to produce it in China or Brazil or the Ukraine or wherever it was, and they dumped it here. And the President said, all right, since you have harmed our industry, we will help our steel industry and the iron ore miners that I represent in Northern Michigan. We will put a tariff on it.

That lasted 18 months and the President pulled out of the agreement. Now we no longer have these tariffs again, and you will see steel starting to get dumped once again in this country.

So when the President says, I need more trade agreements to open up the global market and we will enforce the laws, the first one we have seen where he has actually taken a high-profile case, the steel industry, he is going to hold it for 3 years, 3 years at 30 percent. Three years those tariffs would be on. It would be a 30 percent tariff.

And then what happened half way through it because of pressure from some of our trading partners, the President decides to abandon the tariffs. He promised the steel industry 3 years to get back on its feet. There has been consolidation. There has been more efficiency in the steel industry. Our mines, and I had a couple mines up there, they have consolidated to cut costs to be more competitive. We make the best steel in the world. And we have all worked together.

He said 3 years. We have laid out a 3-year plan to revitalize the steel industry in this country. That lasted 18 months. So when the President says that, with all due respect, he sort of loses a little credibility in my mind when he wants to bring out further trade agreements, not just a Free Trade Agreement with the America which would be all the way down to South America; but he is also talking about a Middle East trade agreement which would include the Middle East, including Iraq. We have had a trade agreement this last year with Jordan.

There are trade agreements all the time. And no matter where you fall on it, you decide for or against them, but when you find clear-cut violations like in the steel industry where the International Trade Commission by a six-zero vote unanimously says, they have dumped illegal steel in this country and hurt our industry, we have a right now to bring in to remedy the situation. The President does it for 3 years, and he pulls out after 18 months.

So I have little faith that any future trade agreements, when there are violations, they will say, oh, we are getting pressure from our trade partners, therefore, too bad. I talked about Michigan. We lost the most manufacturing jobs of any State under this President. Those jobs are gone. Those were good-paying jobs. What do you replace them with? Service industry jobs, minimum wage, jobs with no benefits.

While we are losing these jobs and have record unemployment in Michigan, we are at 7 percent unemployment, what did they do on overtime in the budget bill that we passed here? The reason why many of us did not vote for it, they have a clause in there that you do not have to pay overtime anymore.

One of the hallmarks of employee rights in this, if you work more than 40 hours you get overtime. Under the President's proposal, they will overhaul the overtime rules that would cause in Michigan alone over 300,000 workers to lose access to their overtime pay.

The President says, it does not affect those who have a collective bargaining agreement. Guess what? As soon as that collective bargaining agreement expires, what is the employer going to

say? I do not have to pay overtime anymore. The Federal law has changed; you guys are out of luck.

That is what we cannot have. So, again, we are willing to work with this President. We are willing to work with the majority party. We even bang on their door when they do not invite us to the prescription drug or budget. We bang on the door. And besides sending the Capitol Police, I wish they would ask us to sit down and let us work together. At the end of the day, after we have our voice, after we are heard, whether it is on the House floor or in committee, if we do not have the votes on the proposal so be it. That is the democratic process. But at least give us access to this process. We do represent 49 percent of the people in this country; and, hopefully, after November it will be more than 49 percent.

We just want access, to have an opportunity to have a fair debate with the American people on these proposals, whether it is the President's health insurance proposal, his trade agreements, his environmental policies. We are happy to debate. But do not stick these proposals in these massive omnibus budget bills that no one reads and no one has time to look at, and we run it over to the Senate and rubber stamp it over there and we come back and the President signs it. Because there are many things in there that do affect the well-being of the American people in the gentleman's district and mine. We certainly have a right to be heard on each and every one of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned throughout this Special Order today, Michigan has lost so many manufacturing jobs, more than any other State. We actually got together, the congressional delegation, and the Democrats in particular, along with our governor, Governor Granholm, and actually put together a proposal, a HELP proposal as we called it: Health insurance, employment benefits, liabilities of the pension fund so they have a pension when they retire, and then a U.S. dollar policy. We laid out a very thoughtful document and sent it up to the White House and the President and asked them to at least comment on it and join with us because no economy in this world can exist without at least a strong manufacturing base; and we are losing it so quickly in this country, especially the last few years.

So we put forth our proposal called HELP. Unfortunately, we have not heard anything back from the White House. I know they have been on break. Now we have the budget wrapped up, so maybe we will take a look at it. But there are, Governor Granholm, some of us in the House and at least on the Michigan Democratic congressional delegation, trying to do something because we feel strongly that if you do not have a strong manufacturing base, service industry is fine, high-tech, all that is fine, but you still need a basic manufacturing base to your country. So we put forth a proposal. Again, we are willing to work with the President on that because we do have to keep good-paying manufacturing jobs here in this country. They cannot all go south, and we have to do some things to help out pensions, health care, employment benefits and the value of the dollar as a big impact on our goods overseas.

So we hope that we can work with this administration and this President in addressing those concerns we have on manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, as cosponsor of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, I rise in support of this legislation because of the relief it provides to combat the challenges facing our forest system today. From hazardous fuel reduction to insect and disease infestation research, this bill gives our forest managers and our private citizens the money and the technical assistance they need to help bring our forests back to health.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 will work to alleviate the fire hazards that currently plague our forests. As evident by the rampant spread of the wildfires that recently ravaged Southern California, our Nation's forest system is overwhelmed with excess brush and foliage which could fuel catastrophic wildfires.

This bill provides thinning programs for up to 20 million acres of at-risk lands near communities and their water supplies, at-risk lands that serve as habitat for threatened and endangered species, and at- risk land that is particularly susceptible to disease or insect infestation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904 also provides money and technical assistance to stop the growing problem of insect and disease infestation. In southeastern Michigan, for example, Forest Service managers are battling the emerald ash

borer. This insect has decimated the population of ash trees located in a 6-county area. Luckily, officials have responded quickly, and we are in the process of containing this threat. H.R. 1904 will assist in our fight against invasive species like the emerald ash borer and others around our country by promoting new research and quick action to reduce the impacts on these forest pests.

I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this conference agreement on H.R. 1904. I want to thank the ranking member, the chair, and all of the staff for their hard work on this. It is time we reduce the threat of wildfires to our communities and our environment. Support H.R. 1904.