Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this important bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). Our amendment adds $20 million to the USDA's nutrition programs for the elderly meal reimbursement programs; in other words, senior center meals and Meals on Wheels, and offsets this additional spending by reducing international commodity aid. I wish there were some other offset that we could look to, but this was the most logical offset. Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of America, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the National Association of State Units on Aging. I am sure that all the Members have met and spoken with seniors in their districts, and they have told my colleagues how much they depend on the senior meal assistance that they receive, be it Meals on Wheels or meals at the senior centers. Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals through three avenues, private donations, Department of Health and Human Services, and USDA meal reimbursements. Let me explain why the funding increase to the USDA reimbursements is so necessary. Unlike funding from HHS, which is channeled to the States and local providers based on certain formulas, our amendment here through the USDA reimbursements go directly to every senior meal provider for every meal that they prepare. This amendment is the best way and it is the only way to ensure that there is direct and immediate aid to senior meal providers and the seniors they serve. Every senior, every meal provider in every district in every city, in every town will get their money, whether they are up in Calumet in the Keewanaw Peninsula or in Traverse City or Alpena in the Lower Peninsula, which makes up my district. Why do we need this money? Why does this amendment go above the President's request. The funding for USDA reimbursements has remained fairly constant since 1992. But look at what has happened since 1992 as this chart demonstrates. The amounts, when translated into today's dollars, have steadily been dropping due to inflation. For example, in fiscal year 2000, we allocated $140 million. In fiscal year 1992, we allocated $151 million. But in real dollars, what has happened since 1992, it has gone down. We have lost $40 million from this program in real dollars. It used to be 62 cents they would get for every meal. It is now down to 54 cents. Funding has stayed constant, but the rate of inflation and everything else to prepare those meals have gone up. I do not know how they can do it, but they manage to get by right now at 54 cents per meal. It is for this reason that the senior meals across the country are suffering, from 62 cents to 54 cents. Pennies per meal but, nationwide, it has effects of millions of millions of meals. If we pass the Stupak- Boehlert amendment, we will go from 54 cents up to 57 cents. We can stop this downhill spiral that we have been on. Our amendment will allow reimbursements to finally increase. It may only be 3 cents, but it means a lot to our seniors. I offer this amendment because, like all of my colleagues, I go to senior centers, I talk to my seniors, I talk to my senior meal providers. Bill Dubord and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in Excanaba, Michigan, they told me their agency is having a tougher and tougher time just trying to keep their head above water to provide their seniors meals. I am sure many of my colleagues have heard the same stories and hardships when they go home. The bottom line is this, our senior meal providers need more money to provide senior meals. An increase in USDA reimbursements will give them more money, from 54 cents to 57 cents. They will be able to provide more meals. More meals mean more help for the seniors. It is really that simple. Now, again, to pay for this amendment, we have taken less than 3 percent from an $800 million program, the international commodity aid. I fully recognize the legitimate need for these funds by people of other nations, but before we provide to needy persons in other countries, let us ensure that our own seniors are provided for and protected. When my colleagues are casting their vote, I hope all the Members will think of the seniors they have met back home, the senior meal providers they have spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support the Stupak-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. With regard to some of the concerns about our amendment, and I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), but this program here, after being flat for so many years and actually losing money in real dollar amounts, we cannot just turn our backs and continue to pretend it is not happening. To put the issue in proper perspective, the Meals-on-Wheels Association has endorsed our legislation, the Stupak-Boehlert amendment, and they have said, ``Because America's elderly population continues to be the fastest growing segment of the population, demands on nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing.'' So what are we doing? Our funding is staying flat and actually losing in real dollar amounts every year. The most comprehensive national studies to be conducted in recent years found that 41 percent of home-delivered meals had waiting lists. The relatively small investment, and as they said, what would three pennies mean, three pennies in meal programs that our amendment would provide would pay substantial dividends in helping to target malnutrition and isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional and health status, and enabling many seniors to be able to stay in their home because they got a good meal. While I appreciate the increase of $10 million that the administration has put in, that only puts us even with last year. Throw in inflation, and we are behind the 8-ball again. Let us pass the Boehlert-Stupak amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a good discussion we are having because we have got valuable programs here that we are trying to save. But as the chart clearly shows, in real dollars we keep going backwards; and while we may have put $10 million in, that just made us even with last year. Throw in the rate of inflation. Throw in the point that my colleague made about the increase of gas for Meals on Wheels just to deliver and we are going further and further behind. With the largest increasing part of our population being senior citizens, they cannot stay even, they cannot regress. We have to move forward with this funding. Again, we are taking 3 percent from a $800 million program. There is still $770 million left in that program, and we are at $140 million for senior meals. We are saying just give us a little extra. Now, they say bring up all their offsets. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), myself, the authors of this amendment, we will sit on the Committee on Appropriations. If they want to turn over the power to us and make the offsets, we will be happy to. We would love to. But, in all seriousness, we tried to work on this one. And amongst friends there has to be disagreements. We feel we have to take care of our senior citizens here at home first and make sure that their nutrition needs are met so there is not the malnutrition we see with senior citizens, especially in rural areas, the inner city areas, and the isolation of seniors, bring them to the senior centers and bring that meal in to them.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican non-plan for prescription drug coverage. The Republican non-plan does not guarantee that seniors will be offered drug coverage. It does not guarantee that seniors in rural areas like I represent will have access to their medications from their local pharmacy or that they will have access to the medications they need. Instead, the Republican non-plan provides a subsidy to insurance companies so seniors can continue to pay high prices to drug companies for prescription drugs. Seniors do not want us to give a handout to the insurance and drug companies. They want affordable drugs now. Let us stand with America's seniors. Let us support a real benefit for our seniors, not a cash benefit to the drug and insurance companies. This has not been a bipartisan day. The GOP majority will not even allow us a Democratic substitute or even a Democratic amendment to their bill. They will not even debate the merits of a prescription drug coverage policy for our seniors. That is why we have a nonplan before us. It does not guarantee us anything. It does not provide a benefit. It provides nothing for our seniors.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out of order for a few minutes to express my gratitude to the Members of this distinguished body and to the thousands of individuals and families across my district and in this great Nation who have offered my family and me their support, prayers, and love for the loss of our son and brother, B.J. It is often said that the true measure of any institution is how it comes together for one of its own in times of trouble. As I stand here tonight with a broken heart, I am reminded of the strength and greatness in each of the Members, their congressional staffs, and the men and women who work each day with us in the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only have they displayed their kindness to Laurie, Ken, and me, but also to the Menominee community when so many Members traveled to our hometown to attend B.J.'s funeral. While Members' trips have been reported as a Who's Who in Congress, led by the Speaker, the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and Tipper Gore, the newspaper failed to mention the personal sacrifice each Member made, failed to mention that a number were left standing on the tarmac because there was no room on the plane. The newspaper failed to recognize the kindness of this House, which is found in its Members. B.J. realized the greatness of the U.S. House of Representatives, as he often told me that I could not leave the House until he was 25, so he could succeed me. B.J. knew that Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, ``No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years.'' He told Laurie shortly before he died that he felt he could be an even better Congressman than his dad. I am sure he could have been. Earlier today when I announced my reelection plans for a fifth term, I know B.J. was pleased. We have received thousands of calls and letters from Members and their families, friends, neighbors, even complete strangers. This outpouring of support has given us strength. It has renewed our faith in the goodness of people and in the love of friends and neighbors. The love, support, and understanding that we have received and still continue to receive are blessings for which we will be forever grateful. I would like to take a moment and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who came to Michigan immediately after B.J. died. These Members and I, we all live together here in D.C., not as Democrats or Republicans, but as individuals who have profound respect and love for one another. They are a great source of comfort for me, Laurie, and Ken. My family and I ask that each Member also keeps in mind and close to heart the friends and classmates of B.J. at Menominee High School as they deal with this tragedy. They need all our love, care, and support. B.J. was their class leader. He would have been president of the student body this coming year. B.J. was concerned when the student leadership team could not attend out-of-town functions or conferences because there was never enough money in the student government budget. So in B.J.'s memory we have established the B.J. Fund, to finance in part student participation in leadership programs. Through the generosity of many individuals, organizations, and some Members of this House, I am proud to say we have over $35,000 in the B.J. Fund. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make my son larger than what he was in life, but B.J. was one of those people who we remember they were here. He was blessed with a personality, charm, and charisma. That was B.J. His life is a harsh reminder of how fragile life is, for we do not know what life holds for any of us. For Laurie, Ken, and me, B.J. will be forever in our hearts, on our minds, and on our lips. Tonight we would like to express our heartfelt thanks for Members' support. Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment to address the enormous DNA backlog problem that police departments have all across the country. While we have heard many comments about how there is money in this program or that program, the Scott amendment specifically targets the DNA backlog. I have been working on this issue for some time, and last fall the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and I introduced a bill to cut down on the DNA backlogs that exist in our police departments all across the country. We have been successful in getting this issue heard, and now I hope tonight we will be successful in getting this issue funded. I am pleased to report that the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary has been moving this issue forward, thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and other Members of the Committee. Right now State and local police departments cannot deal with the number of DNA samples from convicted offenders and unsolved crimes. These States simply do not have enough time, money, or resources to test and record these samples. In Michigan, my home State, from 1998 to 1999, around 5,000 samples sit on a shelf unanalyzed. In Virginia, where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is, 191,762 cases of DNA sit in the backlog. In California, 132,000 cases sit unanalyzed. The source of this information is the FBI Lab Survey of Criminal Laboratories in the summer of 1999. Nationwide, that backlog is over 700,000 cases. Unanalyzed and unrecorded DNA samples are useless to law enforcement and to criminal investigators. An example, John Doe is a convicted offender serving time for sexual assault. By law, his DNA has been collected. But because of the backlog, it has not been tested and is not in the law enforcement database. John Doe gets out of jail, he commits another sexual assault, and gets away, unidentified by the victim. Even if the police collect his DNA from the crime scene, he will not be caught, and his DNA will not be matched up, because his previous DNA sample is sitting on the shelf somewhere waiting to be tested. John Doe will stay on the streets, and he will commit more crimes. We need these funds. Because every day that goes by, a real John Doe is out there, committing more rapes, robberies, murders, when he could have been stopped if we just put a little bit of resources into the DNA backlog. This amendment answers a call by the police, communities, and victims. We need to stop the criminals that until now have been able to strike and strike again at our society without being caught.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule and the underlying funding of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. This bill simply does not provide enough funding for one of the most important crime prevention programs we have today, the COPS program, and it weakens several other important programs, as well. I remember standing here just last October to speak against last year's CJS appropriations bill because it underfunded the COPS program. It is amazing to me that we must once again have this fight about funding what is a proven, effective, and necessary program to fight crime in our communities. With pork barrel projects funded year after year, I cannot understand why we cannot agree on full funding for the COPS program. A number of amendments to increase funding for the COPS program will be offered today, and I hope everyone will support them. Because the main principle behind the COPS program is to put officers in this Nation's communities and on the streets, fighting crime in our cities, our suburbs, and our towns. Currently, over 80 percent of law enforcement agencies employ the community policing philosophy making it the predominant crime fighting strategy in America. I am sure my colleagues have all heard of the excited response from their local police departments when we tell them that they have just received one of the COPS grants. This program works. On May 12, 1999, the United States Department of Justice and COPS funded the 100,000th officer ahead of schedule and under budget. That is 100,000 officers working on the front lines to protect our communities and our citizens, making a visible difference, and contributing to the drop in crime that has lasted 8 consecutive years. I support the President's plan to continue the COPS program for an additional 5 years to add up to 50,000 more police officers on the beat. I support the COPS programs that fund additional prosecutors, cops in schools and training and technology equipment for law enforcement. I cannot support this appropriations bill because it falls far short of the President's request of $1.3 billion to fully fund the COPS program. I am a former police officer, a cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus and of the Democratic Crime and Drugs Task Force. I have spent years working on law enforcement and crime-related issues, and I am here on the floor today to tell my colleagues that this bill does not do enough. It does not do enough for the COPS office; it does not do enough to fund crime prosecutions, for violence against women grants, or crime fighting technologies. It weakens the Federal Government's important role in protecting civil rights by cutting funding for the EEOC, the Legal Services Corporation, and the civil rights division. I will vote against this bill because I know we can and we should do better to ensure our communities are safer, our police departments are better equipped, and our individual rights are better protected.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paul amendment, and some will see that as unnecessary, and they say work with the WTO and it will only get better. But what we have seen under the WTO is a tax on our environment, our health and safety standards, and we continue to have steel dumping here in the United States. I am concerned about our American sovereignty. Our democratic form of government is threatened by trade agreements like NAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and WTO, that allows claims to be made against America's markets. It allows claims to be made against, our natural resources without regard to laws to protect the health, safety, welfare and environment of our great Nation like our fresh water resources. Mr. Speaker, I have raised the fresh water resources in the sale of the version of Great Lakes water and our natural resources when we have debated NAFTA, when we debated WTO, and when we talked about trade with China. But the fact remains, once these trade agreements are passed, WTO kicks in and the U.S. sovereignty is kicked out. Take the FO Corporation from Richmond, Virginia, that wanted to put MMT in Canadian gasoline. It is a gas additive. Canada said, no, we want to protect our environment. We want to protect the health and safety of our people. We do not want this stuff in our gas. They went and they filed suit. What happened? Canadian government had do pay them $13 million to put the gas additive in, and now, in Canadian gas, we find MMT. Well, let us just take the reverse, now we have a British Columbia company trying to put MTBE, another gas additive, here in the United States. We banned MTBE in California, because of our environment. We are banning MTBE in the Committee on Commerce in which I sit because of a threat to the health and safety of the American people. But they go to WTO to get them to allow them to sell it in the United States. So the British Columbia firm will now be selling MTBE in the United States. If not, they want $360 million. That is what WTO gives us, a forum, where if they cannot get our resources, then we have to pay them. Then, after we pay them, not only do they get their gas additives, they have to put it in our gas. Who is going to stand up for our environment? Who are the people making decisions with the WTO that affect your health, safety and welfare? Who is going to be the one to stand up for our water resources when the NOVA group wants to ship it or when the Columbia River is being attacked, both on the Canadian and the U.S. side, because they want the fresh water resources because of droughts in this country? Who is going to stand up? Who is elected to this WTO? No one here in this Congress knows. We have no say in it. I believe that these organizations are subject to attack on our environment, our sovereignty, our natural resources, and we as Americans have no say in it. So before we lose all of our control over our sovereignty, before we lose all of our control over our natural resources, before we lose all of our control over our environment, the health and safety of our people, we as elected representatives should say enough of WTO. Let us get out of it while we still can.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, a major issue of concern for veterans and their families in rural areas all around this nation is the long distances they must travel to receive medical care at the VA hospitals. The current VA reimbursement rate for privately owned motor vehicle use is unreasonable and presents a real hardship for many rural veterans, some of whom must travel hundreds of miles to receive care. The issue is especially important now, because of the high price of gasoline. As many of us know, the cost of driving and maintaining a motor vehicle is significant. The travel reimbursement rate developed for Federal employees reflects these costs. This rate is the established Internal Revenue Service rate, the same, fair rate that we are allowed to claim on our income taxes. Currently, the Veterans Affairs travel reimbursement rate is only 11 cents per mile, compared to a rate of 32.5 cents per mile used by Federal employees and the IRS. Why should a veteran driving 100 miles across the state for medical care be reimbursed only $11.00, when a Federal employee gets $32.50 for going the same distance to a meeting in his own car? In fact, Department of Veterans Affairs employees themselves get reimbursed at the higher rate, while the clients they serve are expected to travel at a fraction of the cost. It simply does not make sense for the VA to use a different and stingy method to determine reimbursement rates for vets that are only one-third what is considered reasonable for Federal employees. I am introducing this bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to provide that the rate of reimbursement for motor vehicle travel regulated under the beneficiary travel program of the Department of Veterans Affairs be the same as the rate for private vehicle reimbursement for Federal employees. This is an equity issue and also a matter of respect in the way we treat our veterans. Our vets deserve the same travel reimbursement rate as Federal employees. Please join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to. These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with. Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy. These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input. Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres. We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified. So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through. Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it. Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest. If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road. Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever. Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say. So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers. So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest. The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies. Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest. What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input. One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act. So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order. New Forest Service Policies/Rules (Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input) roadless initiative (Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas) Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress. Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''. Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest. road management rule (Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester) Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction. Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads). Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest. new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest Plans--Results National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control. Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests. New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities. Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his support and for his understanding of what we are trying to do. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment. It will not be offered at this time or later tonight. I would withdraw that proposed amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment today on snowmobile use in certain national parks. Mr. Chairman, the national parks has more than 375 units. These units run from the historic homes here in Washington, D.C., the beauty of the Great Lakes, all the way up to Alaska. For all these units, their popularity is directly related to their access to the parks. As one generation immerses itself in the beauty and history of our national parks, so will the next. This appreciation is often heightened by providing year-round access to parks. In some units, snowmobiles are necessary for traversing the isolated park lands of our northern States. In other units, like the Pictured Rocks in my district, snowmobiles are used for recreational purposes on restricted routes. Unfortunately, on April 27, 2000, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Don Barry issued an announcement that many regarded as a ban of snowmobile use in the national park. The announcement said that the National Park Service must enforce existing regulations regarding snowmobile use. While I understand the need to balance the preservation of our park units with the public's desire for recreation, this issue is about much more. Foremost, the issues of public input must be addressed. Most of these parks have general management plans that permit snowmobiling in designated areas. These plans, promulgated in law as special regulations, were agreed to by the local park officials and neighboring communities. How then can park officials in Washington, D.C. chastise local communities for not enforcing a snowmobile ban? In many cases, the local communities wanted snowmobile use, not restricted use. Snowmobilers wanted controlled and sensible use. That is why the designated snowmobile routes were promulgated as special regulations in Pictured Rocks National Park and other parks. Snowmobilers want to be held to a high standard. To overturn these regulations, the National Park Service will require a new regulation or rule under the Administrative Procedures Act. The National Park Service cannot simply make an announcement and expect it to carry the weight of law. There is a process to be followed here. The process includes publishing a proposed rule or regulation in the Federal Register, taking comments from the public and issuing a final rule. The method used by the Park Service announcement, however, attempts to circumvent the Administrative Procedures Act. Mr. Chairman, I implore the National Park Service, before it proposes such a rule, to go to my community and determine if snowmobiles are damaging the park; ask local residents if they want to continue with some controls on snowmobile use; but please do not make a national announcement that undermines local involvement, ignores local concerns and bans snowmobile use when such an announcement is not enforceable and does not carry the weight of law.

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Wu, Smith, and Udall amendment. I also believe we should invest wisely in our National Forest resources, but I have a different view on how to accomplish this worthy goal. Clearly this amendment put thousands of forestry jobs at risk and jeopardized the economic stability of rural communities such as Northern Michigan. I want to speak about a larger issue. The amendment claims to be concerned with an extensive backlog of fish and wildlife habitat needs. However, this singular approach is misguided. The real backlog is in the overall forest management, the backlog of improvement projects needed to restore forests to stable ecological conditions. Fish and wildlife habitat is an important part of forest restoration. Many of us in Congress are aware of the tremendous accumulation of forest fuels on our public lands. Poor forest conditions are a major contributor to larger forest fires, like the recent fire in New Mexico. It is estimated that 65 million acres of our National Forests are currently at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, and disease. While there may be a large backlog of watershed and wildlife habitat restoration needs, there is even a larger national backlog of general forest restoration work. This amendment is a contradiction. It is misguided to focus solely on fish and wildlife program funding and fail to address the broader forest health crisis that currently exists on our Nation's forest lands. In fact, it is impossible to separate the two goals. Large-scale watershed and wildlife habitat improvement activities are certainly needed. A lot of work is needed in the removal of massive amounts of wood that currently is a fire hazard on Federal lands. The rationale that the forest products line item is excessive is simply false. In spite of what others may have us believe, timber sales are not bad. Modern timber sales are a necessary tool and an economic means to an environmentally beneficial end. Professional foresters can develop silvicultural prescriptions and design timber sales to accomplish fish and wildlife restoration objectives. It certainly would be nice to have more funds for fish and wildlife programs. There certainly is a lot of good work to be done in the woods. But increasing fish and wildlife habitat management funds at the expense of forest products would be a serious mistake. It is unreasonable. Indeed, it would be wrong. It would be wrong to take these funds from Forest Service timber programs. Such a change is misguided and would only serve to hurt both programs in the long run. These funds are needed to protect the forest product line, to counter inflation, and pay the salaries of people who work in the woods preparing and administering timber sales. Reducing the capacity of the Forest Service to prepare these timber sales would ultimately be detrimental to fish and wildlife habitat. Timber sales are often of the most effective way to achieve vegetation management objectives. An example of this work is thinning dense forest stands to restore ecological conditions, reduce the risk and intensity of catastrophic fire by removing excessive forest fuels, and create desired wildlife habitat. Removing excess wood from the forest lands improves the long-term health of watersheds and protects fish and wildlife habitat. A broad forest health strategy and a variety of tools are needed to effectively meet this challenge. Prescribed fire is one tool, but there are many constraints and dangers that limit the use of fire, as we have seen in the catastrophic fire at Los Alamos. Removing flammable wood requires the use of many tools, including properly planned timber sales. Well designed timber sales are a good way to remove large amounts of dead, dying, or overmature wood from our accessible public lands. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for increasing the account for timber sales. Let us not cut the timber sales. Let us have a holistic approach to our National Forests.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a most remarkable individual-- a dear friend, a counselor, a shepherd, a man of the people and a man of God. I pay personal and heartfelt tribute to Father Stephen Patrick Wisneske, the pastor of Holy Spirit Church of Menominee, MI, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his ordination, his golden jubilee. Father Pat came to Menominee 28 years ago. He came to town at a particularly difficult time for the local Catholic faithful, who were being reorganized from the five traditional congregations--including the old settlement alignments of the French church, the Irish church, the Polish church, and the German Church--to three new congregations, based on neighborhood and proximity. The restructuring made sense in terms of reducing the infrastructure that church members needed to support, but it presented real challenges in forging new congregational bonds and establishing new ministries. Father Pat became pastor of the newly structured Holy Spirit Church. He brought years of service in other northern Michigan communities to his new task. Born in 1922, Father Pat was raised in a Catholic home, attended Catholic school for 12 years, served as an altar boy, and was interested in Church affairs even before he was called to his religious vocation. Father Pat was ordained on June 3, 1950 by Bishop Francis J. Hass at St. Andrew's Cathedral in Grand Rapids, and within the month he was assigned as assistant at Holy Trinity in Ironwood. In 1951 he became an assistant at St. Thomas Catholic Church in Escanaba, and in 1953 became an assistant at St. Mary and St. Joseph in Iron Mountain, where he also served as chaplain to veterans in the hospital there. Like his religious predecessor Bishop Baraga, Father Pat spent time in several small parishes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--Dollar Bay, Loretto, Quinnesec, White Pine, and Bergland, before his posting to Menominee. Perhaps because of his own Catholic schooling, Father Pat has always shown that his commitment to his parish--to all local families--lies outside the walls of his beautiful and more than 100-year-old Gothic church. He regularly visits Menominee Catholic Central School, meeting and greeting parents, teachers and children in this more informal setting. Father Pat has become well-known for his homily--his brief moment of addressing the congregation during each Mass. A quick sense of humor has always served him well in helping to drive home the important lesson he wished to teach each week. I have always admired Father Pat for his positive outlook and his concern for his congregation. But it was when tragedy struck my own family that the depth of his wisdom, love, and advice, to me, to my wife Laurie and my son Ken was truly revealed. He counseled, sheltered, and guided us through our darkest hours, and his homily to my son BJ captured the essence of this vital young man for friend and stranger alike. For these kind acts in our greatest time of need, I and my family will always be grateful to Father Pat. Mr. Speaker, moments of crisis often bring brief flashes of insight so brilliant that we are forever changed in our view of the world. In a moment of darkness, I was given an opportunity to truly understand the mission of a parish priest as an agent of divine compassion and strength. I and my family were held in Mighty Hands and bathed in a river of sublime love. Father Pat, a man of the people and a man of God, has spent 50 years shaping himself to be a funnel of that great Power. There can be no greater calling.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Father Jim Williams, a Catholic priest whose parish is located on beautiful and historic Mackinac Island in my northern Michigan congressional district. It was from this spot in the U.S. House that I rose in July 1996 to call the attention of the nation to the tricentennial celebration of Ste. Anne's de Michilimackinac Church. Today I honor Father Jim, who spearheaded the fund-raising effort to restore the historic church. I honor him on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of his ordination, and on the occasion of his receipt of the Mackinac Island Community Foundation's first ``Community Service Award.'' Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there is no more fitting recipient. A special ceremony on June 4 recognized Father Jim's many community accomplishments and his unique, personal and loving ministry. Michigan Governor John Engler and Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm served as honorary co-chairpersons of this event, which took place at Mackinac Island's remarkable Grand Hotel. To further honor Father Jim, the Grand Hotel generously donated a reception, dinner and hotel stay for guests of the event. Every servant of God must follow his own path, trusting the Voice within to lead him toward his life's mission. Father Jim, born a Methodist in Pontiac, Michigan, graduated from the University of Michigan in 1963 with a double major in history and literature. Working on Isle Royale, a remote park in Lake Superior, he met the priest responsible for his eventual conversion to Catholicism. He was ordained while living on the Bay Mills Indian Reservation on the Lake Superior shore, and in the next ten years adopted or served as foster parent to 12 children. Perhaps unique among Catholic clergy, Father Jim has numerous grandchildren and even one great-grandson, Little Bear. He was so near Mackinac Island then, but his path carried him instead to sea, where he served as chaplain aboard the aircraft carriers Nimitz, Kennedy and Coral Sea. In 1986 his path led him back to Upper Michigan, and in 1990 Father Jim came to Mackinac Island. The sense of a community that is part of island living must be what suits him best. It was on a Great Lakes island that his new faith took root and it is now on another Great Lakes island that his role as community shepherd has flowered. ``This is the place I've loved being the most,'' Father Jim says of his parish. ``I love being part of a community with so few walls, where there is such a great mix of people, rich and poor, a wide variety of cultures, nationalities and races. The magic of the Island is the magic of its people, and the magic of the people is the mix of many peoples.'' In his work to restore Ste. Anne's, Father Jim made sure it would have a community room in the basement, and this room is open to the Jamaican, Mexican and Filipino workers three nights a week as a place they can gather and celebrate their own cultures. For these workers, Father Jim has started classes in English as a second language. Because of Father Jim, the island has Teen Night, a night for the island's youth to gather as a drug- and alcohol-free option. Father Jim started a ``Take Your Wife Out to Dinner,'' night once a week, and weekly square dancing. A ribbon cutting will soon be held for affordable housing units, another project that Father Jim helped bring to fruition. My wife Laurie and I were honored last year on our 25th wedding anniversary with a mass celebrated by Father Jim at Ste. Anne's with our sons Ken and Bart Jr. Even though we are residents of Menominee, Michigan, we were grateful to receive the blessings and prayers of our dear friend on Mackinac Island for our special personal celebration. A man of God finds his own reward and does not seek our praise for his work. But I know Father Jim appreciates the fact that he can be a model and an inspiration to others, who may not know how much one man can accomplish. Mr. Speaker, in these remarks, I hope that some of the power of the good works of this island priest shine through.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on May 27 in Marquette, Michigan, a community in my congressional district a special ceremony was held to honor the officers and crew members of the submarines Darter and Dace, SS227 and SS247. These two submarines played a decisive role in what has been called the greatest naval battle of all time, the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1943. The opening shots of that battle were fired by Marquette native Cdr. David McClintock, skipper of the Darter, who had positioned his sub to penetrate a powerful Japanese fleet, one that included the famous Japanese super-battleship Yamato. As commander of the two-sub squadron, Captain McClintock had also helped position the Dace to make an independent attack on the 31-ship Japanese battle fleet. Firing torpedoes from both his forward and stern tubes, Captain McClintock sank the heavy cruiser Atago, flagship of the Japanese Navy's Second Fleet, and he disabled another heavy cruiser. The Dace also sank one heavy cruiser. Two Japanese destroyers were forced to leave the battle fleet to guard the disabled cruiser, bringing to five the number of ships impacted by the Darter-Dace attack. The daring combat actions of these two submarine crews and the essential naval intelligence they provided, were pivotal in helping to prevent a crushing blow to American forces that had just returned a few days earlier to the Philippines under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Mr. Speaker, this ceremony included a dedication of a new submarine exhibit at the Marquette Maritime Museum. This exhibit, which includes a submarine conning tower, is intended to honor not only the Darter and Dace crews but all U.S. Navy submariners, that special group of young heroes who have chosen to go ``in harm's way'' in dangerous and solitary service beneath the waves. A diorama of the battle, a three- foot scale model of the Darter, and a working periscope are also part of the exhibit. Captain McClintock, who completed a career in the Navy before returning to Marquette after retirement, attended Saturday's service. His classmate at the Naval Academy, Captain B.D. Claggett, who commanded the companion submarine, the Dace, also attended the ceremony. This was an extremely fitting way to commemorate Memorial Day, because it honored this special group of Americans, both living and dead. Perhaps one day, Mr. Speaker, you and our colleagues may have an opportunity to visit Marquette, Michigan and see this special permanent tribute to the unique individuals who have given so much on behalf of our country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding volunteer for his work in preserving the grand history of mining in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Burton Boyum is a shining example of how giving to one's community brightens the lot for many. Mr. Boyum has selflessly given his time and served in various capacities designed to better the lives of residents and improve their understanding of the area's economic and cultural history. For decades, the Upper Peninsula was dotted with mines that drew iron ore and copper from the tree-covered hills. The resources, however, were exhausted and now the area is witness to little mining. All that remains of this former economic mainstay, which provided thousands of jobs to hardworking citizens, are the stories of former miners and some dilapidated structures. Gratefully, communities in the Upper Peninsula have been graced by the energy and dedication of Burton Boyum. He has been determined to preserve the historic structures of Michigan's mining past and retain the anecdotes that illustrated miners' lives. Following his graduation from the University of Minnesota in 1941, Mr. Boyum moved to the Upper Peninsula, where he worked as a Mining Engineer for Cleveland Cliffs International until his retirement in 1984. During that period and beyond, Mr. Boyum worked diligently to capture the history of mining. In 1961, he founded the Quincy Mine Hoist Association, a non-profit organization, and served as President of the Board of Directors from 1973 to 1998. Most notably, in 1998, the Quincy Mine Hoist Association honored this distinguished community member by creating the Burton H. Boyum Award. Mr. Boyum has contributed to the community in many other laudable ways. He served as a member of the Marquette County Historical Society, where he wrote and published two books: Saga of Iron Mining in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and The Mather Mine. He worked tirelessly to create the United States National Ski Hall of Fame in Ishpeming, Michigan, which is housed in an award-winning structure that beautifully enhances the interpretation of skiing in our country. Finally, Mr. Boyum played a large role in creating the Great Lakes Olympic Education Training Center, which trains athletes for various events in the world's athletic showcase. I have worked on matters concerning the National Ski Hall of Fame and the Great Lakes Olympic Education Training Center and can appreciate the initiative and devotion displayed by Mr. Boyum toward both creating and strengthening these facilities. Although Mr. Boyum recently suffered a stroke, I am sure that his passion for civic involvement and his appreciation for mining history in the Upper Peninsula will remain steadfast. I ask you Mr. Speaker to join me in this salute to Burton Boyum.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the conferees for bringing forth this bill and the $6 million included in this bill for Michigan to fight bovine tuberculosis. These funds are an important first step in combating an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in Michigan. Bovine TB is spreading in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and threatening our beef and dairy cattle. USDA has announced that Michigan will lose its bovine TB-free status effective June 1. This decision will have dire economic consequences. It will require the testing of all 1.25 million Michigan beef and dairy cattle. It will place greater restrictions on their travel into other States. It is estimated that Michigan's economy will suffer losses of $156 million over the next 10 years. Michigan's situation is complicated because the virus has been found in deer herds, which are more mobile and pose a greater risk to beef and dairy cattle. A quarantine zone exists in Michigan; however, positive deer have been found outside of the zone. In addition, the disease has appeared in badgers, bobcats, coyotes, raccoons, and red foxes. When the disease is rampant, immediate action is necessary. Compounding Michigan's crisis are the restrictions placed on Michigan's beef and dairy cattle from entering other States for sale or slaughter. In the last 4 years, more than 18,000 Michigan cattle have been exported to other States. Now over 43 States have restrictions on accepting Michigan cattle. Michigan farmers have lost their markets and cannot recoup them until TB is eradicated. Help is needed now, not tomorrow, not next month, and definitely not next year. So it is essential that we stop bovine tuberculosis before it spreads to neighboring States. Prior to being downgraded, Michigan had been bovine free since 1979. We cannot, however, afford to wait another 21 years to regain a TB-free status, and these funds will help in that effort. I thank all of the conferees for their work.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent normal trade relations with China. Today's Detroit News quotes a business executive's position on China, and I quote: ``We're not interested in China per se but free trade.'' This executive said it all. Proponents are not interested in fair trade but free trade, where the United States once again freely negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our values, our ideals and our beliefs. In 1993, I raised the issue that these free trade agreements would jeopardize the natural resources of our country and of our Great Lakes water. I was ridiculed. But now we know that I was correct. Under these free trade agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our sovereignty over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova Group's proposal to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic feasibility to ship Great Lakes water to China. This is the first drop in a flood of attacks that will come on our Nation's natural resources and our own sovereignty, all in the name of free trade. As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for principles, values and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty and our American beliefs and ideals. Vote no on permanent normal trade relations with China. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Today's Detroit News quotes a business executive's position on China, and I quote: ``We're not interested in China per se, but free trade.'' This executive said it all! Proponents are not interested in fair trade, but free trade, where the United States once again freely negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our values, our ideals, and our beliefs. A year ago, over 200 Members of this House joined to stop the illegal steel dumping by China and others in our market. China freely dumped steel while negotiating this deal. Miners in my district and steelworkers all across this nation were laid off because of illegal dumping of steel by China. In the 90's, the U.S. negotiated four major trade agreements with China, from beef to auto parts, each violated with impunity--no remedy and no sanctions. More ``free'' trade. Is it no wonder our trade deficit continues to soar each month? China is now the second largest contributor to our trade deficit which now stands at $70 billion per year. This year China will surpass Japan as our largest trade deficit partner. More ``free'' give away trade! In 1993, I raised the issue that these ``free'' trade agreements would jeopardize our natural resources such as Great Lakes water. I was ridiculed, but now we know I was correct. Under these ``free'' trade agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our sovereignty over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova Group's proposal to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic feasibility to ship Great Lakes water to China, and this is the first drop in a flood of attacks that will come at our nation's natural resources and our own sovereignty, all in the name of free trade. As the business executive said, ``We're not interested in China per se--but free trade.'' We, as Members of this House, must be interested in China, its people, our people, our constituents, our American ideas, and our American values and we should only freely export ideals, principles, and our American values such as: families should be allowed to freely have children--not forced abortions and sterilizations; products and goods produced should be produced with pride and ingenuity--not by prisoner and child labor; freedom to assemble, organize and question your government--not crushing ideals of freedom, hope, justice, and religious freedom with tanks in Tiananmen Square. As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for principles, values, and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty, our American beliefs and ideals. Vote ``no'' on Permanent Normal Relations with China.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam conflict began from 1964 and ended 25 years ago on April 30, 1975. During that time, over 3.4 million U.S. American military personnel served in southeastern Asia. Our veterans served in the rice paddies of the Delta, in the jungle of the Central Highlands, on river patrols of the Mekong River, and from air bases in the Pacific. Brave Americans went halfway around the world to help an embattled country and to perform the duty that we asked of them. Many Vietnam veterans were not sufficiently acknowledged for their service to the country in those contentious times. For some, the war is still not over; some of our veterans have not recovered from their wounds, and families will not forget their loss. The war ended 25 years ago, but the event of those days remain deep in our collective memory. It is never too late to express our appreciation. Recently, Congress passed House Concurrent Resolution 228 honoring members of the armed forces and Federal civilian employees who served during the Vietnam era. This resolution acknowledges the significance of the fall of South Vietnam and the importance of the events of April 30, 1975, as a benchmark in American history and an indelible memory for those who so honorably served. I am pleased that Congress has so recognized and commended the meritorious service of our Vietnam veterans. Let there be no doubt that this country does indeed respect, appreciate, and honor the personal commitment and sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans for their service to this Nation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to the late Chester F. Swanson, one of that great breed of dedicated, lifelong union activists who help ensure a good quality of life for the working men and women of northern Michigan. I offer these remarks on the occasion of Chester's election to the Michigan's Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame. At age 15 in 1921, Chester began working for a famed gunmaker in my district, Marble Arms Corp. in Escanaba, Mich. He retired from the corporation after 50 years of service, but he returned many times after this retirement to help with the set-up of machines used to make gun sights. In 1945 a charter was issued by the United Auto Workers for Local 126 at Marble Arms. Proud that the union had come to his shop, Chester made the drive across northern Michigan and took the ferry across the Straits of Mackinac to pick up the charter. He never stopped being a union advocate from that moment on, serving as the local's financial secretary and union steward. Although Chester died almost 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker, one can still hear many wonderful stories that paint a picture of a man who took joy in each day, who made great friendships, who was respected by his co- workers, even the younger workers who remember him so fondly. Gary Quick, UAW International Representative for Region 1-D, recalls that when Chester traveled, he called his mother each day, and when he completed the call he would return to his group and announce, ``All is fine with Mum!'' Gary also recalls one icy winter night--a black, black night with the temperatures about 30 below zero--when the union leadership, including Chester, found itself traveling home from a meeting about 60 miles away. A side trip was required to take one of the members home in the small community of Rock, a trip on back roads with snowbanks higher than the automobile. Chester wondered aloud if the gang would survive the trip, should they run into trouble. For years afterward, Gary says, Chester would be sure to say, ``We made it that cold night to drop off Red in Rock, so I guess we will make it wherever . . .'' Friends recall that Chester, even at the age of 90 years young, would eat his three good meals every day, would be ready to stay out with the younger fellows until late at night and would be ready to go again in the morning. They recall that Chester never forgot his camera for important events, recording friends and sharing the prints, and maintaining a photo record of area youth participating in local sports. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, friends remember Chester as a union man, who cared about his fellow workers, his community, and who cared about the job he performed with pride for more than half a century.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which is very important to the residents in my district and many congressional districts throughout the Great Lakes region. My amendment would prevent the sale of fresh water from our Great Lakes. Our precious water resources should not be sold to the highest bidder, and we must ensure that this cannot happen. Our Great Lakes are a tremendous recreational resource. They provide boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming opportunities. Our lakes are also a tremendous source of drinking water. Most notably, of course, are the Great Lakes, which contain 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply. The 35 million people residing near the Great Lakes have always appreciated the lakes' beauty, vastness, cleanliness, and now they must appreciate that it is also a targeted commodity. In 1998, a Canadian company planned to ship 3 billion liters of water from Lake Superior over 5 years and sell it to Asia. I offered legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives that called on the United States Government to oppose this action. The permit was subsequently withdrawn. The demand for water continues, however, as freshwater supplies dwindle throughout the world. In the United States, each person consumes 100 gallons of water each day. The global demand meanwhile doubles every 21 years. Think about it. The world water demand doubles every 21 years. The World Bank predicts that by 2025 more than 3 billion people in 52 countries will suffer water shortages for drinking or sanitation. Where, I ask, will countries find clean, fresh water? They will look to alternative sources, sources which are outside their area and, more likely, outside their borders. It is understandable, therefore, that the pristine water of our Great Lakes will be targeted. The method is real. The threat is real. To those who say the bulk shift of fresh water is not economically feasible, I say, look around us. From Newfoundland in Canada, to Lake Superior in Michigan, to Alaska, several companies are competing to ship our precious freshwater resources overseas. For those who take a short-term view of protecting this resource, bulk sales of fresh water must seem irresistible. Throw a hose in the water, hook up a pump, and fill an ocean tanker. Maximum profits with minimum overhead. A windfall if a State wanted to license this kind of operation. Yes, our Great Lakes are renewable; but they are not replaceable. I am very concerned that shortsighted policies could allow for large- scale diversions of Great Lakes water, threatening the environment, the economy, and the welfare of the Great Lakes region. We are not merely citizens of the Great Lakes. We are their guardians. We are their stewards. We are their protectors. We encourage conservation, and we return 95 percent of all the water taken from the Great Lakes. Setting aside global water use and trade policies, I ask Members to consider how bulk diversion of Great Lakes water could jeopardize our efforts to be good stewards. In terms of water quality, if we permit bulk diversions to further lower water levels, we increase the concentration of runoff contaminants, of fuel pollution. As lake levels drop, which they are now, we increase the need for dredging to maintain our vital waterways, further compounding the problem with toxic sediments. We must consider all threats posed to our Great Lakes. We must be conscious of the threat posed by the sale or diversion of Great Lakes water just as carefully as we weigh the impact of the invasive species or drilling for gas and oil in the Great Lakes. None of these concerns are truly independent of one another in terms of their potential impact on the 35 million people who depend on our most vital natural resource, the Great Lakes, our great treasures. My amendment would withhold grant assistance from Great Lakes States which allow the sale of bulk fresh water from the Great Lakes. This restriction would apply to water extracted from a lake for mass transportation without further processing and does not apply to bottled water used for consumption. The cleanup of our lakes will preserve their beauty for generations to come. The ban on water sales from our Great Lakes will also preserve their beauty and our greatest natural resource for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.