Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3658, the ``Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act.'' Stroke is the third leading cause of death in America and is a major contributor to long- term disability. Timely diagnosis and treatment of strokes is crucial. Outcomes forthose who receive care within the first few hours of a stroke at facilities with highly trained health care professionals are dramatically improved over those who receive treatment later. According to the American Heart Association, approximately 700,000 Americans suffer from stroke each year and 170,000 die from stroke.

This bill will help reduce premature death and disability from stroke in several ways. First, H.R. 3658 will authorize stroke prevention and treatment education and information programs for the public and health professionals. Second, this bill strengthens and improves the Paul Coverdell National Acute Registry and Clearinghouse, an important source of information on sroke incidence and outcomes. Third, H.R. 3658 authories grants for residence training programs and appropriate training of other health professions in emergency medicine to improve stroke and traumatic injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. Finally, this bill establishes a five-year pilot project aimed at improving stroke patient outcomes by coordinating health care delivery through telehealth networks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleagues, Chairman Barton, Chairman Bilirakis, and Subcommittee on Health Ranking Member Brown for their leadership on this matter. I particularly want to thank Representative Capps for her hard work and dedication to the issue of stroke prevention and treatment. Representative Capps has once again demonstrated her effectiveness and tireless effort on behalf of the health of our nation. She is a thoughtful legislator and skillful negotiator and I give her much of the credit for making today possible.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 295, congratulating Focus: HOPE on its 35th anniversary. For three and a half decades, Focus: HOPE has been a leading voice for the poor and underprivileged in Southeastern Michigan. It has helped feed the poor, educate our young, and foster cultural understanding between diverse populations. Focus: HOPE deserves our recognition and gratitude for all that is has done and will continue to do.

Co-founded by Father William Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis, Focus: HOPE is a community based organization dedicated to employing practical and intelligent action to eliminate racism, poverty, and injustice. It has the largest United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Supplemental Food Program in the nation. Each month, more than 43,000 mothers, children under age six, and senior citizens living on meager incomes get help through the Focus: HOPE Commodity Supplemental Food Program. That alone would garner recognition and plaudits for Focus: HOPE.

Yet, this organization has made economic opportunity the primary focus, leading to the development of some of the most highly respected and innovative education and training programs in the nation. By partnering with industry, universities, and governments, Focus: HOPE has created a pipeline of programs that offer both the technical and educational knowledge critical for a 21st century workforce. Moreover, Focus: HOPE supplies the opportunity, including childcare on campus and softskills training, for its students to be successful in their chosen career. More than 3,000 individuals have graduated from Focus: HOPE's Centers of Opportunity, obtaining jobs in the manufacturing, engineering and information technology fields. Mr. Speaker, I have long supported the efforts of Focus: HOPE, and congratulate them on their 35th anniversary. I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of this very fine organization by supporting this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great personal sadness about the departure from this institution of a great friend, wise counselor, mentor, and superb public servant. I do speak, however, with pride about the accomplishments of Charlie Johnson, who has served us, the House, and his country well.

He is in all particulars a great patriot and a great American. He has been wise counselor to us, mentor; he has given us good advice; and he has seen to it that we understood the history and the traditions of this institution.

He has served us in the great traditions of Clarence Cannon, Lewis Deschler, Bill Brown, and now the fine work which he has done. He is going to be missed by this institution. He has served as an example to all of us and to those who will follow in his particular task as Parliamentarian.

It has been his responsibility to see to it that the House function as it should, in accord with the great traditions that we have here of respect, of decency, and of love of this institution. And for that and all of the other things that we can say good about Charlie, we have to recognize that we should say thank you; that we should say well done; that we should wish him well for what it is that he has accomplished.

The House is a better institution for his wonderful service to this body. And all of us here, as individual Members, particularly those of us who have had frequent occasion to consult with him about the rules, about the traditions, about how this institution does work and how it should work have a special reason to be grateful to him and to have a special burden of gratitude to him for what he has done.

I am proud, indeed, that he has been my friend. I am grateful to him as my mentor. I am appreciative to him of his wise counsel and guidance. And I know that I am not alone in feeling a singular debt of gratitude to my good friend, our Parliamentarian, as he leaves us.

I would note that other Members have these same feelings and all have good reasons. And I would note that the House of Representatives is a better institution, and one more in keeping with the traditions and with the principles and practices, and in keeping with what it is we would like to say it was, a great institution, the House of the people, and a place which serves all of us.

All of us have reason to miss him, and we will indeed. We will wish him well. We will pray that God will be good to him and that He will give him many years to enjoy a reflection upon the great service which he has given to this great country.

I say again to him, Charlie, well done, good and faithful servant. You have made this a great institution, and we are all grateful to you. Thank you, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to the heroic men and women from the great state of Michigan who served in the United States Armed Forces and the civilian defense sector during World War II. The sacrifices that these heroes made to protect our country and defend freedom from the tyranny of totalitarianism will never be forgotten.

From Benton Harbor to Detroit, from Calumet to Monroe, brave men and women left behind their homes and loved ones to answer their country's call to duty. Be it fighting in the Atlantic or the Pacific theater or working in one of the many war production plants throughout our state, courageous Michiganders truly helped make America the Arsenal of Democracy. As our forces fight overseas today, like those of yesteryear, we are vividly reminded of the debt of gratitude we owe our men and women in uniform who serve to better our country.

Mr. Speaker, we come together as a people on Memorial Day to pay tribute and remember those who have died while defending our Nation and its values of democracy and freedom. This Memorial Day we make a special tribute to the Greatest Generation with the dedication of the National World War II Memorial. This Memorial is well overdue and will ensure that our nation will never forget the brave and gallant service of millions of Americans.

Today, we come together to praise and thank the many veterans who answered their country's call to serve. The labor of the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters of Michigan who helped defend our country shall never perish from our memory. For the National World War II Memorial stands tall to ensure that each passing generation understands the sacrifices that the World War II generation made for our nation.

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in opposition to the irresponsible budget conference report before us today.

This conference report, for the first time in over twenty years, only provides us with a one-year budget plan. In the first version of the bill, my colleagues attempted to use a five-year budget instead of a ten-year budget to hide the massive fiscal irresponsibility of their plan. Now, because even a five-year plan was too much, they have reduced it even further to merely one year. There is no plan to reduce the deficit or to provide funding for this Nation's most important domestic programs, for our veterans, our seniors and our children. This rascality on the part of my Republican colleagues is unacceptable. The American people deserve to know the outrageous bills the Bush Administration is racking up in their name and with our children's credit.

Further, this bill included $55.2 billion in additional tax giveaways which will only add to the already ballooning deficit. My Republican colleagues will not even apply the ``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO) method to these tax giveaways because they know we cannot afford them. The PAYGO enforcement rule is a mere common sense attempt to steer clear of unnecessary excessive spending. This is especially necessary to afford the tremendous costs of war which we face today. In this budget, the PAYGO rule is only applied to entitlement spending for one year, and in reality would only apply to legislation in the Senate.

If this budget passes, we will also be agreeing to increase the debt limit by $690 billion, to $8.1 trillion. Including this measure in the budget and not as stand-alone legislation, is merely an attempt to conceal the catastrophic costs incurred by the fiscal policy of this Administration and Congress.

On the Medicare side, Republicans offer no proposals to improve the insufficient Medicare drug benefit enacted last year. Also absent from this budget are other proposals that could improve the Medicare program such as funding for increased nursing home staffing and quality improvement or fixing the flawed payment system for doctors. Nor are there any proposals to protect the Medicare program from being overcharged and defrauded by private insurance companies and Health Maintenance Organizations. And of course, there is the similarly outrageous effort of this White House to hide from both Democrats and Republicans the true cost of their Medicare privatization bill, which truly makes me wonder whether any of their budget numbers can even be trusted.

This budget continues the Republican war on the environment. The President and Republicans will try to sound like they are environmentalists, but the truth is in this budget which contains drastic cuts to major environmental protection programs. This budget cuts discretionary environmental spending by $900 billion below 2004 levels. My Republican colleagues would rather give tax breaks to their fat cat friends than invest in clean water and cleaning up toxic waste sites.

In addition, this budget does nothing to protect the Social Security trust fund, five years from when the first of the baby boomer generation reach retirement age. These Republicans' fiscal mismanagement will squander the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus, adding to the ballooning deficit and throwing the long term economic security of millions of Americans into doubt.

For education, No Child Left Behind is already dramatically under funded and this budget will continue this disgrace. We cannot leave the states to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program. Special education, after school programs, teacher training, Pell grants, Perkins loans, and vocational education are all either frozen or cut under this draconian budget. I wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to ensure that public schools fail so they can privatize the entire system?

We need to get back to fiscal responsibility and get the nation's economy back on track before this economic crisis gets even further out of control. We need to take care of our veterans, our children and our environment. We need to ensure that our citizens have healthcare and education and opportunities. This conference report is nothing but a sham and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation and to applaud the efforts of my good friend and colleague from New Jersey and his opposition to it.

This legislation is bad. It is going to encourage cherry-picking and cream-skimming. It is going to create a bunch of plans that are going to be exempt from State regulation. It is going to actually reduce the quality of care available, the quality of health insurance available, and also the amount of insurance available and the people who will be covered.

More than 1,000 organizations oppose AHPs: the National Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike; the National Association of Insurance Commissioners who say that it is going to encourage cherry-picking and cream-skimming; the National Association of Attorneys General, Republicans and Democrats alike; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the Consumers Union; and Families USA, plus many others.

What it is going to do is to actually undermine the current employer- sponsored market. As I mentioned, it will encourage cherry-picking of healthier and younger populations because they will be permitted to cover specific types of employers and thus establish a special new, separate market and will be a market where it will not cover many people, who will find that the difficulties in procuring insurance will be more difficult because of this.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that AHPs will cut benefits for 8 million Americans who now have coverage. That alone is argument enough to defeat this legislation. Additionally, CBO determined that AHPs will only increase enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage by 330,000 people.

A Mercer study commissioned by the National Small Business Association found that AHPs would cause the uninsured to grow by better than 1 million. That, again, should be warning enough.

At a time when 43 million of our people are uninsured, AHPs will simply move us backwards. I urge us to defeat this legislation. It is bad. It is not in the interest of the country. Everybody who is responsible for dealing with insurance has said this is bad legislation. Reject it.

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing today is a sorry spectacle. We are voting on the same bill the House already voted on a little over a year ago. The one difference is that there is a new bill number. And, in those 14 months that have passed, our Republican colleagues have not changed one line in their bill to respond to the problems of increasing insurance costs to the doctors while protecting injured patients.

Instead, they are sticking with the same legislation, legislation they know will not pass the Senate. A bill they know will trample on the rights of legitimate patients, and will provide unprecedented protections to HMOs, the real beneficiaries of this legislation. This legislation is the exact opposite of the Patients' Bill of Rights, which would have provided real protections to doctors and patients alike in the struggle against cookie-cutter medicine foisted upon them by HMOs, if the Republicans had not successfully defeated it.

Let's be clear, this Republican bill does nothing to end frivolous lawsuits, just responsible ones. The bill limits awards for honest claims. It imposes new hurdles on aggrieved patients. And the bill does nothing to address the real problem--skyrocketing insurance premiums sending profits directly into the coffers of those companies.

I would like to point out that this bill is brought up during ``Cover the Uninsured Week.'' To say that shielding HMOs from lawsuits will help cover the uninsured is a huge stretch for even the most vivid imagination.

If the Republican leadership was really interested in helping those without healthcare insurance, they would take up legislation like the bills democrats introduced today--the FamilyCare Act and the Medicare Early Buy-in--and build upon existing successful insurance programs to give families dependable, affordable coverage. And they would take up the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act which targets small businesses with real subsidies to purchase solid insurance products.

Democratic proposals take us forward, providing meaningful coverage without trampling the rights of consumers, eroding protections, or causing millions to lose their existing coverage. The Republican bill, and the other bills we will see this week, pay lip service to helping consumers, while richly rewarding the health insurance company allies.

Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill. I may be one of the few on the floor who has. But as a long-serving Member of this body, as a private who finished World War II as a second lieutenant, I sat on boards, courts martial, served as military prosecutor, and also as defense. I find in the legislation no word of anybody other than Members of the armed services. I find no mention of discussion of members of the CIA, of members of the civilian leadership, of the Defense Department or other government agencies. I find nothing about civilian contractors.

My question to the chairman, are we going to go into that behavior, or are we just going to sack a bunch of poor infantrymen up to the rank of sergeant or something like that and say you are going to jail, when in fact this was policy which originated much higher?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

It sounds to me like they are going to stick it to the ordinary uniformed military service under the rank of lieutenant, and let everybody else off the hook. This is a bad proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, Richard ``Dick'' Micka, on the occasion of his retirement from La-Z-Boy Corporation after 36 years of distinguished service.

A longtime Monroe County, Michigan resident, Dick graduated from Monroe Catholic Central High School in 1956. He then earned a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Detroit in 1960. That same year, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force. For nearly three of his seven years in the military, Dick served at Okinawa. He became a captain with the Medical Service Corps.

Dick began his career with La-Z-Boy's Monroe Headquarters in 1968 as Factory Payroll Supervisor. In 1970, he moved to inventory control, and then to the production-planning department in 1971. He was special projects manager from 1974 to 1979, working closely with the Fabric Processing Center. In this position, he was among the first to witness the company's computer-controlled system in Monroe, Michigan command a South Carolina factory machine to mechanically choose and pick up a fabric roll from the thousands on hand. In 1979, Dick was promoted to his current position. As Vice President of Administration, Dick has dealt with the assets, patents, trademarks, and administrative functions of La-Z-Boy, but he is certainly best known for his service as La-Z-Boy's community and civic affairs director.

Dick has faithfully served many community organizations, including the Monroe County Historical Commission, the United Way of Monroe County, and the Monroe County Chamber of Commerce.

He is also a noted conservationist. The Michigan United Conservation Club honored him with their Conservationist of the Year award in June 1974 for his efforts to save the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area in Monroe County, Michigan. He is still very actively involved in efforts to restore Lake Erie wetlands, clean the lake of environmental contamination and restore native habitats and species.

As Dick enters his retirement years, I would ask that my colleagues rise and join with me to wish him and his wife, Jeanne, a very happy, healthy, and relaxing future. I would also like to thank him for his dedicated service both to La-Z-Boy and the Monroe Community.

Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago that President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and pronounced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. The banner strung across the command tower of the carrier read ``Mission Accomplished'', and the President's words that evening gave the American people, and the families of those in Iraq, that our men and women would soon be coming home.

If this was a perfect world, our President's made-for-TV excursion would have made the perfect Hollywood ending to mercifully short war. Sadly, this is not a perfect world. War is never perfect, it is messy. It is grotesque, and it does not end on any schedule but its own.

The month that marked the year anniversary of announcing the end to major combat operations has been the bloodiest of the war. Since May 1, 2003 over five hundred men and women have been killed, including Private Holly McGeogh of Taylor, Michigan, killed when her vehicle hit a roadside bomb. Almost three thousand more have been injured. Many of our returning young men and women will have an even tougher fight ahead of them as they adjust to life in a wheelchair or with a prosthetic limb.

I say this, not to heap criticism on a situation where young men and women are risking their lives. I say this because one year after the tyrant was toppled we still have a long way to meet our goals. The men and women stationed outside Fallujah and Najaf can tell you that major combat is still a fact of life.

Today we have little more than eight weeks before we turn some measure of sovereignty to the Iraqi people. And much like a college student trying to cram before finals, our Iraq policy is now at a fever pitch trying to right the wrongs of a poorly planned reconstruction effort. General Eisenhower once said, ``In preparing for battle I have found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.'' Sadly, today we are watching the results of cavalier planning.

The arrogant manner in which pre-war criticism was dismissed is tragic in hindsight. General Shinseki's belief that it would take 200,000 more troops to provide post-war security led to his unceremonious dismissal. Presidential economic adviser Larry Lindsey estimated the war would cost at least $150 billion, rather than pay for itself as Vice President Cheney asserted, led to his forced resignation. The wholesale dismissal of the Iraqi army created hundreds of thousands Iraqis unemployed with bitterness towards the US as their only severance. Ironically, it's has been the dismissed generals who have tried to foster the tenuous truce in Fallujah.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. Yet once engaged in battle, I believe we must do all we can to bring the troops home safely, provide them with the equipment needed to keep them safe, and to have a plan to bring them home. We have had none of these?

For all the vaunted leadership of this White House, with all accusations thrown around by their allies in Congress that impugn the patriotism of those that might question the President, our military is bearing the brunt of their poor planning. The hollow rhetoric from the President and his allies has not put more troops on the ground, has not brought more countries into the coalition, has not unburdened America of the costs of the reconstruction, and has not brought our brave men and women home to their families. Challenging terrorists and insurgents to, ``Bring it on'' is not a policy; it is a substitute for bravery that threatens our soldiers in the field.

This April has been the deadliest month of combat we have had since the Vietnam War. We all hope and pray that the months ahead will not be so brutal. I am not asking that President present the Congress and the American people with a detailed plan of how long we will be there; how much it will cost; who will take charge; and a myriad of other questions. I know that in war a plan can easily be overtaken by events. What I ask, one year after his now infamous speech, is that he just be honest with us. Respond to our questions, put our soldiers before other concerns, and level with us. We are a great nation, the Congress is a great institution and the voice of the people. We have precious little time remaining to ensure a successful Iraq.

It is my hope, that a year from today, that we can mark the end of this bloody month as the true turning point for the future of a free, prosperous, and democratic Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise one of the most under appreciated professions in our society: teachers. In doing so, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude for their often thankless, but noble efforts.

To quote Cicero, ``What nobler a profession, or more valuable to the state, than that of a man who instructs the rising generation.'' Teachers, next to parents, are the most influential people in the lives of our children. Like parents, they prepare students for the future. Teachers serve as role models, mentors and friends. They strive to work with parents and guardians so that the full potential of each child may be realized.

Mr. Speaker, teaching has never been an easy job, and it hasn't gotten easier in recent years. Currently, the people to whom we entrust our children must teach in classes so

large many of us would find it impossible to maintain order, let alone create an atmosphere conducive to learning. Many teachers must work in dilapidated buildings where heating, plumbing and cooling systems are insufficient. At a time when many of us would find it impossible to function without a computer, teachers are confronted with the task of preparing kids to work in an increasingly technological society without the use of this most basic piece of equipment. Not only do teachers deserve our thanks, they also deserve access to the best tools possible. Our nation's future is, after all, in their hands.

The Bush Administration introduced the No Child Left Behind Act with the promise of reforming and improving education in our country. My colleagues have claimed that ``education reform costs money, and this Administration is willing to spend it.'' However, this has proven to be yet another empty promise. This Administration has been unwilling to fund their own education bill, providing $9.4 billion less for education reform next year than was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. Rather than fund their education program, the Republican budget has found room for over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for their fat cat friends.

Furthermore, the proposed Republican budget provides only $2.9 billion for teacher quality programs, $234 million less than what the No Child Left Behind Act authorized. This means 56,000 teachers will not receive the extra training they need. Cutting extra training for our teachers not only hurts the quality of our education, but also hurts our ability to recruit and retain these teachers.

Mr. Speaker, under-funding education not only affects our children, it affects working families. To compensate for the loss in funding, local communities have been forced to raise taxes to pay for textbooks and teacher's salaries. Budget cuts have also resulted in more than two million children failing to receive tutoring in reading and math and more than one million children being denied access to after-school programs.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, not only under-fund education, they attack our public school teachers. In fact, Department of Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a ``terrorist organization'', arguing that the NEA was against school standards and accountability. Instead of fostering resentment, this Administration needs to promote unity; education needs to be a cooperative, nonpartisan effort and we need to honor teachers, not demonize them.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues and our nation's governors, acting either in haste, desperation or philosophical zeal, have continually tried to undermine real education reform by grasping at ``revolutionary schemes'' such as vouchers, which have proved to be destructive to public schools as well as ineffective in raising student performance. They have attempted to privatize public schools, where 90 percent of America's children are educated. In an attempt to highlight the problems faced by public schools, they have used teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their own risky, underhanded schemes that only divert education money away from where it's most needed. I stand before you today to say we should not tolerate this rascality any longer. Our teachers, our kids and our nation's future deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we can work together, write quality legislation, help our schools and thank our teachers for their efforts by showing them we know how important educating our children--and their role in this mission--is to America's future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with heartfelt sadness to acknowledge the death of a great public servant to the State of Michigan. On April 12, 2004, Judge John R. Perry was killed by a hit- and-run driver while walking home. John Perry was known for his passion for the law and for the legal process and for the enthusiasm and commitment he brought to his family and his community.

Judge Perry was born in Wyandotte, MI on January 11, 1931. He earned his law degree from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1958 and since then he has never looked back, embarking on a 24-year career as an attorney and serving as a mentor to many young lawyers as they worked their way through the course of their legal profession. In 1982, Mr. Perry was appointed to the 36th District Court bench and served for 12 years as an executive presiding judge in the court's environmental, criminal, and traffic and ordinance divisions. Judge Perry was a great friend to the district court, often lending a hand to younger judges who joined the court.

While John was known in part for his legal career, he was also known for his compassion, his involvement in the community and his friendship to many of us. John was a good husband and father and I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Suzanne, his two sons,

John and James, his daughter Julie Mulligan, his stepdaughter, Barbara Evans, his stepson James Madigan and his seven grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Michigan lost one of its most important leaders; his family has lost a father and husband and many have lost a friend. It is with great sadness that we acknowledge his passing but is also my honor to acknowledge the important contributions he has made throughout his life. I will miss his friendship and the State of Michigan will miss his wisdom and service on the bench.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today. The loss of a large number of Members of the House of Representatives is an important institutional issue to which we should devote a substantial amount of consideration. This issue deserves an open rule to allow every Member time to express his or her opinion and offer their ideas. It is outrageous that we are only being offered one choice to decide how the entire House of Representatives will be governed in a time of national crisis. Should tragedy strike the House, this legislation could give unprecedented power to the executive branch or a few Members of Congress who were elected by just a small sliver of the country. We have not had adequate time to review this legislation, nor have we been allowed to bring sufficient amendments to the floor for debate. Once again, we are considering legislation without ample debate time and without alternatives. I oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Earth Day marks a day of reflection for the American public, an opportunity to evaluate our progress in the fight to protect our environment. This past year we have seen the Bush administration's blatant disregard for the environment. Each one of us has the responsibility to stand up for environmental protection irrespective of the wishes of special interests. However, my Republican colleagues have failed to keep our Nation's commitment to a healthy and secure environment.

I have been here for a long time. I am proud of the role I played in many of our cornerstone environmental laws. In the 1970s, we recognized that we owe it to future generations to protect the environment, the laws we passed were not revolutionary, they were common sense. These laws were passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. One could even say that these environmental laws were so important that they were, in fact, nonpartisan.

Sadly, the tide has turned.

The Bush administration has shown, over and again, that they care more about their corporate buddies than the health and well-being of the American public. This has resulted in the weakening of some of our most fundamental environmental protections, including the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Producing profits for their fat cat friends has given rise to plans to open protected lands for oil and gas drilling. Commercial logging companies have been invited into our national forests and attempts to dredge and fill our wetlands. Mr. Speaker, this administration does not recognize that we can have, and we have had, both economic booms and environmental protection. The two are not mutually exclusive.

One item on this extreme, anti-environment agenda is altering our current Superfund program. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have abandoned the ``polluter pays'' principle and have instead turned to the taxpayer to ``pay the polluter'' and shoulder the cost of toxic waste cleanups. In 1995, the Clinton administration paid for 82 percent of toxic waste clean-ups from the Superfund Trust Fund, funded by polluter-paid fees. The current administration, on the other hand, has emptied this fund and are handing the bill to the American taxpayer. Furthermore, the swiftness of cleanups has declined 45 percent from the average of 87 sites per year during President Clinton's second term to a mere 40 sites in 2003. Polluters need to be held responsible, which is why ``polluter pays'' should be restored.

Furthermore, my Republican colleagues have undermined the safeguards put in place by the Clean Water Act. President Bush's guidance to federal agencies has left 20 million acres of wetlands and countless miles of streams unprotected. What's more, the administration is proposing to slash states' Clean Water revolving loan funds by $492 million in 2005. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act protects all waters of the United States, a fact this administration fails to see. Today, as a result of the Clean Water Act, our lakes, rivers, and streams are in considerably better condition than they were 30 years ago. But that progress can easily be lost. We cannot let these unprincipled rascals in the White House continue to roll back the Clean Water Act.

An additional assault on our environmental laws appears in President Bush's forest policy. I am particularly concerned that President Bush's plan calls for overriding and ignoring many environmental rules, resulting in the stifling of public input and the reliance on private industry to do work on local forests. This outlandish plan attempts to justify destroying forests in the name of saving them. The roadless rule has opened pristine forests, such as the Tongass National Forest, to logging projects, threatening one of America's few remaining temperate rain forests. As the author of the National Environmental Policy Act, I believe the Federal Government must weigh the environmental consequences of an action before it is undertaken. This is a common sense law that needs to be enforced, not rolled back.

When I first arrived in Congress, the United States had virtually no environmental protection statutes on the books. Businesses, governments and individuals could spew into the air, pump into the water, or dump onto the ground virtually anything--with impunity. Our Government has made strong environmental gains during the past generation and the current administration is a threat to that progress. Ultimately, it must be our goal as a nation to create and maintain a vibrant, thriving and healthy ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, we borrow the Earth from future generations, and we owe it to these future

inhabitants to protect it to the best of our ability. We have serious environmental problems, but unfortunately, the Bush administration is making matters worse, not better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Dearborn Chamber of Commerce on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

As the central source of information for and about Dearborn, Michigan businesses, the Chamber of Commerce has served the community well throughout its transformation from a heavily industrial city to its current mix of commercial, retail, and institutional enterprises.

The Chamber has successfully worked to provide leadership by developing a unified voice for member businesses through promotion, assistance, and the development of partnerships. The Chamber is also supportive of the Dearborn Public Schools with its annual Alberta Muirhead Teacher of the Year Award to recognize outstanding Dearborn public school teachers.

The Chamber works hard to promote both the Dearborn community and its businesses. In the past, the chamber has hosted an old world market, a business expo, and an auction. The Chamber was also responsible for a summer food festival to help promote the Ford Senior Players Championship golf tournament. Another recent project is the Chamber's first ``grub crawl,'' which will serve to promote the city's growing restaurant scene.

I would like to ask my colleagues to rise and join me in commending the Dearborn Chamber of Commerce for 60 years of service to the community and area businesses. I hope that they will continue to help the City of Dearborn as it evolves over the next 60 years.