Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. But failure to act by the other body means that we do not get a stimulus package plus that our unemployed do not get the extension in unemployment benefits and they do not get the access to health care. So their inaction is hurting those that are out of work, short-term and long-term.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think that last point is the most important. We need to do a stimulus package, and the inability of the other body to even consider in debate a package is very disappointing. We do not help the workers that are unemployed today. We do not put in place a package of stimulus items that will help ensure that this is a short downturn and not a very deep downturn. And the third thing, I think, is that it is difficult to factor in, but it will send a psychological message that we are ready to move on, and that we are about focusing on domestic issues, as well as waging a war on the other side of the world; that we have not forgotten about the issues at home. So, these three items coming out of the House and moving forward, I think, speaks well for our ability. It may not be a perfect bill, but it is a whole lot better than doing absolutely nothing and not even being willing to bring a bill to the floor for debate. If our bill is not perfect, let the other body develop its own version and move forward and bring it to conference, so that by Christmas this President, this country and the American people will have a stimulus package. That is the way the process is supposed to work. But the shear inaction as our economy struggles is totally unacceptable. I thank my colleague for inviting me here.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to offer my strong support for the fiscal year 2002 intelligence authorization bill. I believe it is a good, bipartisan product that addresses both the urgent short-term needs, as well as the long-term rebuilding requirements in human and signals intelligence. As a relatively new member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to address just a portion of the bill which I think is very, very critical. It comes out of the tragic incident of April 20, 2001 when the Peruvian military, relying on information provided by the U.S. Government, mistakenly shot down a civilian airplane as part of a drug interdiction operation. Two innocent Americans, constituents of mine, lost their lives due to this error. In an effort to ensure that this type of incident does not occur again, I have worked closely with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the committee to secure greater accountability from the executive branch with respect to the oversight of these counternarcotics activities. Section 504 amends current law relating to the immunity of employees and agents of the United States and foreign countries engaged in the interdiction of drug trafficking aircraft. Under this section, the President will annually certify to Congress both the existence of a drug threat in the country at issue and the existence in that country of the appropriate procedures to protect against innocent loss of life. If our drug interdiction efforts in Latin America are intended to protect the American people from the threat of narcotics, we need to be sure that the methods we use do not create more innocent victims like the Bowers family. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) on an excellent bipartisan bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. The gentleman is absolutely right. The trip we took down to the Pentagon late this afternoon put the horrors of yesterday into context. We were taking a look at the side of the Pentagon, the part that was virtually destroyed, and recognizing that we were still only seeing a partial picture of the devastation that had happened with the crash. We were able to thank the individuals who, for the last 36 hours, have been on-site in a search and recovery mode, trying to do everything they can to identify and find the survivors and answer the questions. On behalf of a grateful America, we were able to express our appreciation to those workers in person and also to the people working in New York. Also, our thanks go out to the grateful people who entered into prayer last night for the victims, the families and for the workers that have done such heroic things. Mr. Speaker, all across America last night, people came together in prayer. They prayed for the victims of yesterday's tragedies and they prayed for the loved ones of those who lost their lives. As a country, we prayed for understanding, and we prayed that our children would never again have to witness such senseless violence. As we attempt to come to grips with the scope of what happened yesterday, I am reminded of our great nation's motto: ``In God We Trust.'' Today, as a nation, we need to reaffirm our belief in this motto, because now, more than ever, we as a nation need to put our trust in God. My heart goes out to the victims and families and friends of those killed and injured in yesterday's attacks. We need to keep them at the forefront of our thoughts and prayers. We also need to keep in our prayers the thousands of firefighters, police, rescue personnel, doctors and others who are tirelessly working to rescue the victims of these barbaric attacks. To those who would dare threaten the United States, or the freedom that she represents, I can tell you that the resolve of our great people and this great nation remain strong. Through our faith in God, we will not easily be bowed. May this be a season of prayer, as we attempt to understand the tragic events of yesterday, and as we contemplate our national response.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent Juke Van Oss. Juke has been involved in West Michigan radio for 50 years, but August 12 does not just mark the anniversary of his involvment in radio--it also serves as a reminder of over 50 years of community involvement in areas that extend far beyond the airwaves. Juke's service has ranged from the Saugutuck School Board and Village Council, including three years as Mayor, to a position as President of the Chamber of Commerce and a seat on the Region 8 Criminal Justice Planning Council. Juke got his start in radio during World War II. Shortly after being transferred out of Air Force radio school to the infantry, he was sent to Luzon where he was given 50 pounds of radio equipment to carry around the Pacific theater. After discharge Juke remained involved in radio, earning his Ham license and applying to be an engineer at WHTC 1450 AM. On August 10, 1951 he got his First Class license in Chicago, and his career began two days later. Juke's big break came one morning when the host didn't arrive on time. He spent an hour on the air, the people loved him, and when the morning slot opened up he had a new job. Juke tried a number of different shows and formats, and it was 40 years ago that he settled into something that suited his amiable nature: He began hosting ``Talk of the Town,'' the mid-morning show that made him famous. Over 50 year Juke has entertained more listeners than can numbered, and he has seen many people come and go. He has worked with folks who went on to their own successful careers in radio and television, and he has worked through changes in listeners, changes in topics, changes in partners, changes in formats, and changes in technology. Through it all Juke Van Oss has remained the constant.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me explain the amendment, but before I do that, I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for agreeing to work with me on this amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, for working out an agreement that enables us to move forward and reach a compromise that I think we all feel very good about. Let me explain my amendment. My amendment withholds $65 million from the $676 million in H.R. 2506 for the Andean counter-drug initiative for the Peruvian military and police forces until two things happen. First, the Secretary of State submits to Congress a full report on the incident of April 20, 2001; and secondly, that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency certify to Congress 30 days before any resumption of the U.S. involvement in counter-narcotics flights in a force-down policy that permits the shooting down of an aircraft by the Peruvian Air Force until enhanced safeguards and procedures are in place to prevent any similar incidents from the April 20, 2001 event, that any incidents in the future would be prevented from occurring. Let me explain what happened on April 20. On April 20, 2001, two American families engaged in missionary work in South America became innocent victims of our Nation's war on drugs. A young mother and her 7-year-old daughter were needlessly killed when a Peruvian Air Force jet opened fire on their plane which was returning her, her husband, and their two children to their missionary home after flying from Iquitos, Peru to obtain adoption papers for their daughter. The pilot, who was seriously wounded in the shoot-down, amazingly was able to safely land the plane on the Amazon River, saving the lives of his other passengers and himself. How did this tragedy happen? While we know a lot of details; unfortunately, at this point in time, Congress and the public have not yet been able to review the investigative report which is still being developed. Basically, the Peruvian Air Force shot the missionary plane after another plane owned by the United States Department of Defense, chartered by the CIA, and staffed with U.S. Government ``contractors'' mistakenly targeted the missionary plane to be potentially smuggling drugs in the Andean region. For several years now, the U.S. has been participating in a joint drug interdiction effort with Peru that has a force-down intercept program that permits the Peruvians to shoot down aircraft that our government identifies and targets. I have learned that there have been other concerns about certain actions of the Peruvian Air Force in the past. The kinds of concerns that could have and should have raised a red flag warning that tragedies such as this could occur. With so many questions and concerns over obvious procedural, legal, and moral flaws with this type of policy, we have an obligation to review the information. We should review the findings before making a decision whether or not to continue funding our country's direct involvement in a counternarcotics effort that permits the killing of innocent people and treats it as an acceptable loss. We should be having a serious debate on the merits of our country's participation in this type of force-down policy which, according to the State Department, is only permitted in two Andean countries. I ask that my colleagues please remember what the real cost of this event has been: a young woman, a daughter, a wife, a mother, a friend, and a woman dedicated to sharing her faith with the people of Peru, along with her young adopted daughter, was killed. There was no reason for this, there was no purpose, and there was no gain. This is only devastation laid on the doorstep of a family whose life was devoted to sharing the message of God. As we consider the lives lost and forever altered by this event, we must consider the policy that led to the involvement of the United States. As a Congress, we must weigh our desire to stop the flow of drugs into this country against the need to keep innocent people, no matter what their country of origin, safe. We must carefully consider whether we should continue to embrace a policy that can and has resulted in unnecessary and unwarranted and unacceptable loss of life. As we reflect on the actual events, the policy that led to those events, and the reasons the policy contributed to these events, please do not forget we are talking about real people. In a July 17, CNN article, a senior Bush administration official was quoted as follows: ``We better ensure that the likelihood of this happening again is as close to zero as humanly possible.'' With the report, review and certification, we can move closer to ensuring that this never happens again. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I applaud the gentleman for bringing forward this amendment, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for agreeing to this revised amendment. I think, as the gentleman from Michigan has stated very effectively, it is important that Congress maintain its oversight and that it preserves our ability to review and monitor what the administration is doing, and in Plan Colombia, one of those measurements that Congress should keep its fingers on, are the number of contractors and the number of U.S. military personnel involved in this process. As the gentleman stated, when this plan was approved in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill, there were many of us that were concerned about ``mission creep.'' These gaps were put in place to ensure that there would be no ``mission creep'' without congressional review and oversight. This amendment preserves that.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for allowing me to work with him on this amendment. Regrettably, I come to the floor to talk about this issue on an appropriations bill. This discussion would be much better if we were going through an authorization process, but this is the only place we can talk about a very critical issue. I think there is a great degree of uncertainty of how this program is working. We know that on this appropriations bill there is significant legislation that will further militarize this situation. I think we need to be nervous about that. That is why I looked favorably on this amendment when it was proposed to me and why I chose to co-sponsor it. In the last few months, I have had the opportunity to travel to Africa. Investing in health care around the world is an important investment. We were in Lagos, Nigeria. We had the opportunity to witness the effects of polio and recognize that polio is still a disease that faces way too many children around the world. Investing in child survival and health programs is a good investment. In contrast to that, I think there is a sincere concern about our efforts in the drug war. As I listen to the debate today, I hear terms such as we have to reduce the drug flow, narco-governments, surrender to drug lords. I sometimes wonder if we are willing to sacrifice all U.S. values in this fight on drugs. We know that in certain cases, and we will be talking about one of those later on today in another amendment that I will be proposing, when we tried to work out some protections that would embody basic human values and basic U.S. values and rights that we cherish in this country, we are not willing to extend those basic rights to the people in South America. We are willing to do other legislation in this appropriations bill but carrying basic rights that we treasure in this country and that we afford to our own citizens, we are not willing to extend to our colleagues south of the border. Are we willing to sacrifice all decency and basic human rights so that we can benefit here in the U.S. while others suffer in other parts of the world? I am not sure that is the direction that we want to go. The U.S. values that we cherish here are the same values that we should share and export to other parts of the world. We need in this bill, since it is the only vehicle that we will have an opportunity to express our values on and our feelings and opinions, we need to use this bill to say we are going to defend U.S. values and U.S. rights in this country and we are going to ensure that those values and those rights are extended into other countries where we are engaged and where we are invested. The greatest export that we have around the world is not dollars, but it is a vision of freedom and it is a vision that says freedom and human rights are a basic right that people around the planet should share. We are the model. That model should not change when we leave our borders.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my district represents roughly 150 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. On a day-to-day basis the quality of life and the very livelihood of many of my constituents are directly affected by Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of this Nation's most precious resources. This amendment is one way we can help protect and preserve the largest body of fresh water in the world. I am and have always been in favor of States rights and there are some that will invoke that issue in regard to this amendment. Action by Congress is needed, however, because the Great Lakes States and provincial governments of Canada have a patchwork of regulations that do little to protect the Great Lakes from the dangers associated with oil and gas drilling. Canada allows vertical drills to line the bottomlands of Lake Erie. While some States in the Great Lakes region allow drilling, others have banned this practice. Protection of this resource cannot vary from State to State or from one body of water to the next. Everything is interconnected in the Great Lakes region and the decisions that place Lake Erie at risk in turn place Lake Michigan at risk and vice versa. The only appropriate policy is to keep drills out of the Great Lakes. I feel it is necessary today to vote in favor of this amendment to eliminate the risk as opposed to allowing this activity to take place. In addition to supporting this amendment today, I am also introducing legislation that will call for further study of the environmental impact of oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. I will ask for a complete assessment of the condition, safety, and the potential environmental effects of pipelines that run under the Great Lakes and through the States that surround those lakes. And I will ask for a comprehensive study to determine how much oil and gas might be gained by drilling in the Great Lakes region. We should go further. We need a comprehensive plan to protect the Great Lakes. This is a good first step.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership. I look forward to continuing to work together on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I also understand the gentleman's desire to expedite a Coast Guard authorization bill this year and avoid the difficulties that have plagued Coast Guard authorization bills in years past. As the gentleman is aware, the Coast Guard's primary mission on the Great Lakes is that of search and rescue. Unfortunately, the U.S. Coast Guard's fiscal year 2002 budget weakens that mission by proposing to close the Coast Guard's seasonal search and rescue air facility that has operated out of Muskegon since 1997. I fear that the closing of this facility puts the safety of Lake Michigan boaters in danger. The Muskegon site was selected by the Coast Guard after an elaborate selection process that proved Muskegon to be the most cost-effective location for their capabilities. In addition, the proposal to close this facility directly violates fiscal year 1999 appropriations language that establishes a seasonal facility to better serve the Chicago area. However, that very provision also directs the Coast Guard not to close or downsize any other facility to accommodate this additional seasonal capability.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I also appreciate his willingness to address this matter on a more appropriate piece of authorization legislation from his committee. In addition, will the gentleman agree to express his support for the safety of Lake Michigan boaters and the need for additional funds to maintain the operation of the seasonal search and rescue facility in Muskegon?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee. As the gentleman from New Jersey knows, I have filed an amendment to authorize to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation roughly $2 million for the continued operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard air search and rescue facility in Muskegon, Michigan for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, technology can be a powerful means of increasing student achievement. State and local school districts are already experimenting with promising technology programs from on-line research services to distance learning initiatives. Such innovations, telecommunications and information technology programs at school libraries, for example, should be encouraged and bolstered by Federal funding. One of the things that we know is that school districts need flexibility. Later on today as we consider the President's education plan, I will offer an amendment to allow school districts more flexibility to move money between programs. One of the programs that they will be able to move more money into is the technology area. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will support this flexibility for our local school districts.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank him for bringing forward this amendment. I think the debate and the discussion that I just heard really does crystallize the exact debate as to where we need to hold and what accountability really is. The President's plan originally talked about flexibility, it talked about accountability, and the accountability was to the Federal Government. What this amendment says is that there is another accountability. It is the accountability of schools, teachers, to parents. To claim that there is not accountability there, this amendment is absolutely false. This is empowering parents and will force schools to be accountable not to a bureaucrat in Washington, not to a bureaucrat in the Department of Education, and not to a bureaucratic test that is mandated out of Washington. We know a lot about this Department of Education. If we talk about accountability, we are talking about holding schools in Holland, Michigan, in my district, accountable, when at the same time Congress continues to back away from holding the Department of Education accountable for their $40 billion that they cannot get a clean audit on, and were not willing to allow parents to make the decisions about their kids. Let us recognize through this process that by empowering parents we are moving accountability to exactly where it should be. We are moving it away from the Department of Education, we are moving it away from Washington, we are moving it away from our State capitals, we are moving it around the kitchen table, where parents can make the decision as to what school and what school environment most effectively meets the needs of their children. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, when the President came to Washington, he announced a bold plan, a bold plan to reform education, by giving more flexibility to the States, by holding the schools accountable for results and by empowering parents. Over the last 3 months, that plan has slowly been whittled away. Much of the flexibility that the President had envisioned for States to target their spending towards the needs of their kids is gone. This amendment is an attempt to give the States and local school districts just a little bit more flexibility for that 1 percent of their money that comes to their local school districts. Parental empowerment is basically gone. Accountability, it is interesting the President's plan said we are going to get rid of process accountability. We are going to move away from these categorical programs that tell school districts exactly what to do with every Federal dollar and then audits them to make sure that the dollars are spent for each of these programs creating a huge bureaucratic and programmatic nightmare. He said we are going to come back and we are going to focus not on process accountability, but we are going to focus on results accountability; move away from process accountability, go to results accountability. Let us test whether our kids are actually going to be able to read and to do math. The process accountability has stayed alive. The bureaucracy has won on all of those counts. School districts will be given money. They will be told how to spend it, and now they will also have the results accountability. We will now be telling school districts what to do and exactly what results they will be expected to achieve, and if they do not achieve those results, here is what will happen. It is all laid out in the bill. It is all very clear. This ends up being the most significant takeover of our local schools since the creation of the Department of Education. It is disappointing that we do not trust the individuals who know the names of our kids to do what is best for our children. Go to your local school districts. I spent a tremendous amount of time in school districts in my hometown, my district and around the country, and if there is one impassioned plea that you consistently hear, it is free us from the bureaucracy, free us from the paperwork, free us from the mandates so that instead of focusing on Washington and what you are telling us to do, we can focus on the needs of our kids. This amendment is just one small step in trying to bring some more freedom to the folks who know our kids' needs, but, more importantly, they know our kids' names and they can bring those things together. There is such a tremendous diversity in the needs of our children and the needs of our school districts that we ought to trust our local school officials to do the right things, to trust our State officials. They do not need another Federal mandate. As a matter of fact, they have a Federal mandate that comes into effect in 2001 on testing. We are throwing that out, putting a massive new mandate in place. Let us trust the folks back home to do the right thing with a small portion of this money. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Currently, H.R. 1 gives local school districts a new opportunity to use some of their Federal funds in a way that will benefit their students. This transferability option will allow school districts to transfer up to 50 percent of the money they receive from four Federal programs, grant programs. They can move these monies between the programs or into Title I. This is an important step forward in giving local education officials, those who know the names of their students, the ability to spend Federal funds the way they believe will improve student achievement, not the way a bureaucratic in Washington tells them to. Transferability is a positive way to give school districts some flexibility in how they spend their money. I believe that we should go even further. That is why I have offered this amendment. This amendment will allow a school district to go above the current 50 percent gap and give them the option to transfer up to 75 percent of their Federal formula grant funds between programs if they receive approval from their States. I hope my colleagues will agree that this is an important step forward in flexibility, and I encourage them to support this amendment.