Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues which Congress must periodically address is the adjusting of the level of minimum wage. I did not say raise the minimum wage, I said adjust the minimum wage. The last adjustment of the minimum wage dollars took place in 1991. At that time the minimum wage was adjusted from $3.80 to the current level of $4.25. Despite that adjustment of 45 cents, the actual buying power of basic hourly compensation is estimated to have fallen by 50 cents because of inflation. In fact, the minimum wage is now 29-percent lower than it was in 1979 and, left unchanged, its real value will be at a 40-year low by January. In the absence of any kind of automatic cost- of-living adjustment, let us take the necessary step to bring this basic entry-level wage up to where it needs to be today. In the most simple way, we can positively affect the lives of millions of working Americans. Let us approve an adjustment in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour over the next 2 years.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. I favor that the hear transplant be done safely for less money.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. I would urge that we defeat the previous question, and we oppose the rule under which this bill will be brought up today. The last speaker spoke about consumers, and that is what I would like to talk a little bit about here today and hope they do not get lost in this whole discussion. Mr. Speaker, today we will hear from my friends on your side of the aisle that it costs so much more to do products, whether it is a medical device or a simple stepladder. It costs one-third more because of product liability insurance. We have heard a lot about especially the stepladder; it seems to be the one that is making the TV news. So I called my local hardware, Walter Brothers True Value up in Menominee, and I said, how much does it cost for a stepladder, an 8-foot aluminum stepladder? They said it is $130. So if one-third of it goes for product liability insurance, then we should be able to reduce that upon enactment of this bill by $43, so that stepladder should now only cost $87. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to do just that, to make sure that consumers are protected, not only for product safety but also protect their pocketbook and the cost that they say would be generated if we pass this legislation. Of course my amendment was rejected. So let us see who gets the money here and who gets protection here. Will the manufacturers be required to reduce their costs by one-third underneath this bill? No. Will the product liability insurance companies be required to reduce their premium notices by one-third? No. Will the consumer be required to do anything in this bill? Yes. They will be required to give up some rights. They will be required to bring action. They will be required to give up rights for punitive damages for faulty manufacture, for defective products, for inadequate warnings. So who is losing here? The consumer. The consumer. From the fall on the ladder, the windfall goes not to the consumer but to the insurance company and the manufacturers. Not just stepladders, but the decrease in the cost of vaccinations, will that occur in this bill? Is there any requirement here? No. How about medical insurance? No. How about child safety seats? No. Mr. Speaker, we are going to limit the rights of ordinary people to bring a cause of action for their injuries and damages, and it is a windfall for large corporations, manufacturers, and the insurance company. My amendment would have helped to ensure it would put some integrity into the system to make sure those cost savings are passed back to the American people and, unfortunately, my amendment failed and was not even considered by the majority. So I have great reservations and hope we will oppose the previous question and hope we go back and get an equitable rule on this.

Mr. STUPAK. And that the consumer be protected. That is not in this bill.

Mr. STUPAK. for less cost.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, in upper New York State, far from Washington's budget battles, an elementary school teacher named Theresa McAnaney has learned she may be laid off, because her school district does not know how much money it will receive from the Federal Government. The plight of Ms. McAnaney and 15 colleagues facing layoffs is profiled in a recent New York Times story, but their case is not unique. In my own State of Michigan, pink slip notices must be given to teachers by April 8, less than 2 weeks from today. Across the Nation, 40,000 people face layoffs, because school districts cannot plan their budgets. The New York Times article goes on to say that, faced with uncertainty, school districts are also scrapping long-range plans. Hurt most are programs in poor and urban school districts, dependent on Federal aid for remedial instruction in reading and math, drug-free School Zone, Head Start, and Title I. Surveys from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal reveal that most people consider education their top issue, and favor the same level or increased spending for education. Mr. Speaker, we must resist the GOP's cuts in education and approve a budget that brings financial stability to educating tomorrow's leaders.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1833, legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. I would like to share with my colleagues some highly cogent articles on the highly emotional issue of partial-birth abortions. I believe Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Sun-Times; George Will, writing for Newsweek magazine; and, John Leo, in U.S. News and World Report, convey some very important views that we should take into consideration as we debate and deliberate this legislation. [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 12, 1995] Truth in Reporting? Gimme a Break (By Dennis Byrne) Hands-down winner of the sleazy, dishonest journalism award is NBC's ``Dateline'' for its ``reporting'' on the partial- birth abortion ban. Not that NBC didn't have some stiff competition from other pro-choice media acolytes who blindly parrot the line that partial-birth abortions don't hurt the kid and are used only to save mama. But NBC outdid all of them with a segment broadcast before the Senate voted Thursday to approve the ban on grisly partial-birth abortions. In it, NBC gave the white, middle- aged male senator who backed the bill (apparently no self- respecting woman of child-bearing age could be found to support the bill) a fraction of the time and none of the sympathetic treatment accorded the other side: a tearful woman who told Congress she had to have the procedure because of a defect in her fetus. The grieving, sensitive couple was even interviewed at graveside. NBC neglected to make one critical fact clear, though: The couple's story had absolutely nothing to do with the ban. The whole story was irrelevant because the law would apply only to such abortions on live fetuses. This couple's was dead. Continuing the parade of horribles: ABC's Sam Donaldson (M.D., Ph.D., etc.) explained Sunday that partial-birth abortions are used only for the most serious of health reasons. Which ignores what one doctor who performs them, Martin Haskell, told the American Medical Association's newspaper, American Medical News: ``In my particular case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' The story also speared some other pro-choice myths, such as the idea that the fetus is dead before the abortion begins. ``No, it's not,'' replied Haskell, estimating that in his case, about two-thirds of the fetuses are alive at the start of the procedure. Naturally, pro-choice extremists attacked the publication for supposedly misrepresenting Haskell, but the paper stood by the reporting, and produced a transcript from a tape recording. Then comes AP reporter Diane Duston, who, in a story Friday about President Clinton promising to veto the bill, wrote without attribution: ``Late second- or third-trimester abortions are performed to remove a severely deformed or already dead fetus that could cause the mother to die, become infertile or otherwise desperately ill.'' She ignores Haskell, who himself testified that ``agoraphobia'' (fear of open places) was among the reasons some women had sought a second-trimester abortion. Another physician testified that three of her own patients had gone to Haskell for abortions well beyond 4\1/2\ months into pregnancy--and that none were ill and all had normal fetuses. Another doctor who performed partial-birth abortions, the late James McMahon, acknowledged he performed at least 39 partial-birth abortions for ``depression'' and nine for cleft palate. Then there is Kate (``I-make-it-up-as-I go-along'') Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, who said that anesthesia kills the fetus before the abortion. That riled the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which said such claims have ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact.'' It doesn't kill the fetus, and may not even relieve its pain. Such false claims, the group added, endanger pregnant women and their unborn children because they might discourage medically necessary surgical procedures. Finally, the Chicago Tribune weighed in Nov. 8 with a one- sided report of a National Organization for Women press conference opposing the ban. It was a moving story of a Naperville woman who had this procedure to spare her deformed child the trouble of living. But neither the Tribune nor NBC bothered telling the equally moving and eloquent story of an Oak Park woman, a Democrat, who also testified before Congress about how she decided not to have the procedure. More on her later.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, just one word before I talk about the continuing budget resolution we passed earlier today. My friend from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], who I have great respect for, and I did sign his letter, when we fight drugs, and being a former law enforcement officer myself, the responsibility is with everyone from Judge Baer, to President Clinton, to the Speaker of the House, and that is why I am disturbed about the continuing budget resolution that was passed today in which the money for drug-free schools zones was deleted from the budget, so there will be no money for drug-free school zones. So, when the Speaker points to this as an example of merely words, I would have to remind the Speaker that his budget priorities have encouraged the use of drugs in drug- free school zones in schools across this country and not fight them. So, while we may ask for Judge Baer to resign, maybe we should ask the Speaker to renew the funding for drug-free school zones. But, Mr. Speaker, funding of our Government on a week-to-week basis is shortsighted, destructive, and an irresponsible way that we could possibly manage the risks and the tasks of running the greatest country in the world. Shortsighted has more than one meaning here. In the near term, we are being destructive and wasteful by forcing Government agencies to limp along on partial funding, continuing to operate, but unable to give full service to the American public. In the long term we are hurting our investment in that most basic and important of all services, public education. Today we voted on an 11th continuing budget resolution to keep the Government going. This resolution was for 7 days, it was for 1 week. Underneath the new majority we have become a government by the week, for the week, and of the week. I voted ``no'' on this continuing resolution because of the drastic cuts in education, not only title I, not only Head Start, but also, as I said earlier, the drug-free safe school zones have been cut. Here are some facts I would wish that the majority will remember: A recent Gallup Poll showed two-thirds of all Americans ranked the quality of education as their top priority over such issues as crime, health care, and the deficit. A January Wall Street Journal poll says 9 of 10 Americans favor the same or increased spending on education. The January Washington Post poll says 8 out of 10 Americans oppose cutting education. Yet the current budget resolution, which was continued today, if extended for the year, will cut $3.1 billion from education, the largest education cut in our Nation's history. Are such cuts in step or out of step with the will of the American public? The polls I cited would indicate that such cuts could not be more out of step. If we extend this continuing budget resolution to the year's end, more than 1 million young people will be deprived of services in the title I program alone. Here are some other ways to view the problem: Failure to have assured funding in place is affecting the operations of America's 110,000 elementary and secondary schools that serve roughly 50 million students. State legislators and school administrators in all 50 States and in more than 14,000 school districts are unable to develop detailed financial plans for the coming year. Without these plans in place, this affects the hiring of teachers, the signing of contracts. Impact aid districts are squeezed by partial payments. This will affect roughly 2,000 school districts, including those in my home State of Michigan, and 1.3 million children. The Brimley School District in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is looking at a $600,000 shortfall because title I has not been completed. Antrim County stands to lose $100,000; Benzie County schools, $58,200; Charlevoix schools, $77,700; Cheboygan schools, $140,200. Crawford County will be over 70,000, Emmet County over 67,000, Grand Traverse, over 200,000. Mr. Speaker, unless the Department of Education can make full payments, many schools will receive impact aid or run out of funds later this spring and will be unable to pay teachers' salaries. People with disabilities will not receive rehabilitation services. Vocational rehabilitation programs prepare some 1 million individuals each year to get a hold of and to hang onto their jobs. This is only a partial look at the problem, but it lets us draw some sad conclusions. One of the tragedies of this Congress is that we have gotten away from rational discourse and debate. We have gotten away from the notion of agreeing to disagree, while completing the basic business of the people of the United States. There certainly can be rational debates over the long-team or long-range value of programs like drug resistance education, drug-free school zones, title I, and other specific education programs. In fact, having a debate over these programs is an excellent opportunity to restate their value and their importance to the American people. However, Mr. Speaker, this process of destruction by attrition, of week-to-week continuing budget resolutions, of the slow wearing down of those who struggle in the field of education, is not rational, and it is not a debate. It is irrational, and the American people recognize it as the wrong way to do business. Mr. Speaker, we would ask that when we come back next week and work on a continuing budget resolution, that we take into consideration the cuts we have made in education, the cuts we have made in the environment, in the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the gutting of the Clinton COPS Program. We ask that these be put forth in a continuing budget resolution, and we stand ready to work with the minority and the majority to work together to find the $8 billion we need to cut.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. We are talking about the COPS Program. The last speaker from the other side, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], mentioned the COPS Program, and it is the President's program. Let me just say what they are saying in New Orleans about the COPS Program, that since they have implemented the COPS Program there has been a 15-percent decline in homicides. When the police department, through the COPS Program, opened 24-hour substations in some of the toughest housing projects, murders dropped 74 percent, or maybe even one of the constituents of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] said, Deborah Davis, a mother of four, who has lived in these places, projects, all of her life she said that this is what community should be like. Instead of a killing place, it is now a place where we can see the light of hope. So why would the new majority want to kill the COPS Program? Understand, this program has not one police officer there. Eighty-seven percent of the American public will be served by over 33,000 police officers authorized underneath the COPS Program to date. COPS will fund small towns in rural areas, where I live, like northern Michigan. Half of all funding goes to areas serving jurisdictions under 150,000. The block grant program would go to population centers at the expense of our smaller rural areas. COPS per State minimum is twice what is even fashioned or thought of underneath the block grant program, because it not only funds the hiring of police officers but also is used to purchase equipment and technology, the hiring of civilian officers, civilian dispatchers, and the payment of overtime. The program, the bureaucratic program that they rail against, is a 1-page form, a 1-page application form. So what the COPS Program does is it responds directly to the flexibility of the local needs. Block grants would only allocate money on a very strict, complex mathematical program. The block grant proposal provides far less funding for fighting crime and prevention than the COPS Program. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues throughout this Nation will look at the COPS Program, the success we have had, and vote ``no'' on this bill and not to gut the COPS Program. It is a good program. It is a successful program. And I am pleased to be an advocate for the program on behalf of the President.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today we will do a temporary funding billing that will cut environmental enforcement programs for the Clean Water Act, the safe drinking water program. We will cut out the COPS Program and replace it with a block grant program that does not guarantee one more police officer on the streets of America. But the biggest cuts are in education, $3.3 billion in education. In my district of northern Michigan, some of my counties, such as Antrim County, will lose $100,000; Cheboygan, $130,000; Grand Traverse County, over $200,000. What about college student loans? Over $4 billion in cuts in college student loans. Mr. Speaker, we need programs that will support an increasing of wages for our workers. We need a program that will assure them good benefits and a secure retirement. We should be investing in education and training and not cutting it. Therefore, I will vote no on this temporary funding bill today.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is out of step with the bedrock concerns of the American public when it comes to education funding. A recent Gallup poll shows two-thirds of the Americans rank quality of education as their top priority over such issues as crime, health care, and the deficit. A January Wall Street poll shows 9 out of 10 Americans favor increased spending in education. A January Post poll shows 8 of 10 Americans oppose cutting education. Despite these dramatic and overwhelming numbers, the current continuing resolution cuts $1.5 billion nationwide and $64 million in Michigan, my home State, for title I, vocational education, drug free schools and other programs. If we extend the continuing resolution to year's end, more than a million young people will be deprived of services in the title I program alone. Our budget process has been turned upside-down this year. Let us get back to common sense. Our real contract with the American people demands that we restore funding to education, protect our children, and invest in America's future.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker in the well said let us take a look at the Republican plan, and let us take a look at what they have done. Republicans say they stand up for working people, when they fought for policies that have squeezed working families and denied them and their children needed opportunities. They have refused to raise the minimum wage. They have passed higher taxes for working families. They have passed a Medicare premium that will increase on 37 million beneficiaries. They have passed the corporate raid on workers' pensions. Your pensions are no longer safe with this new Republican majority. They have passed the repeal of the Medicaid guarantee on nursing home coverage. Mr. Speaker, I hope America will take a look at the Republican record and their plan and see that it is nothing but putting a squeeze on working families and unwilling to cooperate with the majority of people in this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the majority on their handling of this legislation. H.R. 2036 is a bipartisan bill based on negotiations between the majority, minority and the administration. This bill will relieve companies from the expense of spending over $800 million of dollars in unnecessary and burdensome regulation with minimal environmental benefit. Due to previous judicial action, it is vital we pass this legislation and have it signed into law by early May. I want to especially thank Subcommittee Chairman Oxley for his support of this measure and his willingness to seek Democratic input. The gentlelady from Arkansas Mrs. Lincoln, and Chairman Oxley and myself offered an amendment to require EPA to complete the study of impoundments that is called for in the bill. Simple common sense dictates that if you order someone to conduct a study, you should expect it to be completed. Even though the EPA believes these impoundments do not pose any risk to human health, prudence dictates we should have the agency make sure we do not put our groundwater and communities at risk. Although, I'm not an expert in surface impoundments, I'll take very seriously the agreement between the majority, minority, EPA, and industry that this bill is a positive step in requiring more sensible environmental regulation. I was glad to work with Mr. Oxley and hope the process used in the consideration of this measure will become a blueprint for future improvement of environmental regulation in the House.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the United States faces a major threat to its financial credibility from the new majority, which is playing politics with the Nation's credit and refusing to raise the Nation's debt limit. Their tactics hurt all Americans, just as Americans were hurt by the expense and inconvenience of two Government shutdowns. But the issue involves more than finances. The credibility of this very Nation is hurt by such tactics. We approve spending measures for Social Security, for education, for the environment, for the defense of this Nation, and then we tell America that we are simply not going to pay our bills. Whatever happened to the fullfaith and credit of this country? What ever happened to one's good word. Republicans may try to fool the public by suggesting that raising the debt ceiling will somehow cap future spending, part of their agenda to reduce spending on Medicare, or Medicaid, the environment, and education, but the new majority should be honest with the American people. The debt limit must be approved to pay for current spending, not future spending. We must be responsible and protect our Nation's finances and reject this destructive extremism by passing a clean resolution to raise the Nation's debt ceiling.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has been here only 3 years, the same as I, but in the last several months he voted three times to extend the debt limit. In his budget reconciliation bill, in these budget bills, in these horrendous bills that the other side put forward to give $245 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest and cut Medicare and Medicaid, Mr. Speaker, if we look in those bills, three times my Republican colleagues have already voted to extend the debt limit. So what is the problem? Give us a cleaner CR. Let us increase the debt limit. The other speakers would say we are spending money prospectively. Brimley School District in the Upper Peninsula is waiting for its $600,000 impact aid payment it cannot have because the other side will not pass a full, clean CR. They will not pass a debt limit extension. They will just sit on their hands as this school district has to go out and borrow money to stay afloat; while they stand here and say, ``We never did this.'' But my Republican colleagues have done it three times already this year. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with the American people. Let us get a clean bill up here. Let us get a clean CR and let us raise the debt limit, as they have already voted to do three times.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, first I would say congratulations to Grandpa Dornan on his newest grandchild. Mr. Speaker, as I was back home this last 2 weeks for the district work period, we had a lot of town hall meetings. I spoke with many other groups. For Mr. Dornan's grandchild and other grandchildren and our children throughout this whole country, folks told me we need a balanced budget, we must have a balanced budget. I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, there are actually three balanced budgets pending before the House that will meet the Congressional Budget Office requirement to balance the budget within 7 years. But of the three plans, what the voices from home told me is they need to balance the budget while protecting Medicare, education, and the environment. The plan the folks at home clearly supported was the plan that had the least amount of cuts in the Medicare programs. In fact, the folks back home are saying no tax breaks until we balance the budget. So of those three plans, I hope we will look at those three plans in the next few weeks and actually in those three plans, let us look at the plan that has the least amount of cuts in Medicare, no cuts in education, that will protect our environment and balance the budget in 7 years. It can be done. That plan does exist.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, a lot of attention has been paid to the crime-fighting elements contained in this bill, I think the biggest crime being committed here is on this floor here today by trying to blame the President of the United States for vetoing this bill, which somehow shuts down Government. If we wanted to put Government back to work and all of our employees, we would have voted earlier today on a resolution to put them all back to work, the so-called Dole legislation. So let us quit talking about crime in this crime bill and how great it is and somehow it shuts down Government. We really should be talking about fighting crime. Being an ex-police officer, I want to devote my attention to the crime portion of this legislation. Back in 1994, when we passed a real crime bill, we promised, all of us, in a bipartisan manner, to put 100,000 more police officers on the street. Unlike my friend from Illinois, who said Father Washington knows all, we have put 31,000 more police officers on the street. Who applied for those 31,000 police officers? No one in this room. No one in this room. It was the local mayors, the local county boards of commissioners, the state police. They asked, and they applied on a one page application, and it worked extremely well. The American public wants more police officers on the street. That is what this program is delivering. American people feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. Putting more police officers in their communities will make them safer and make America more secure. But in this bill that you are presenting today, not one single police officer is guaranteed. We asked you back on December 6, our motion to recommit, to take $1.9 billion to fund the COPS Program out of your $14.6 billion. My friends on that side of the aisle said no, they could not allow us to do that. So the President vetoed the bill, amongst others reasons, but mostly the COPS reason. December 19, the COPS More Program was announced. Many of you got police officers. But you got more than police officers, because the COPS Program is more than just cops. It is equipment, it is civilian employees, it is technology. It is what you need, it is what the local people are telling us they need to fight crime in their communities. So if you take a look at it, COPS has the support of virtually every major law enforcement agency in the United States, the cops, the sheriffs, the chief of police, the beat cops in every town and city across this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, to my last friend who just spoke, e-mail reply, e-mail reply: Here is what the balanced budget does, here is what the majority party is not telling you as they try to balance the budget in 7 years. They do not tell you that for the first 3 years the deficit actually goes up by $53 billion; it goes up by $53 billion for the first 3 years because they are giving a $253 billion tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of this country, and corporations would no longer have to pay tax with the repeal of the alternative minimum corporate tax. Tax breaks up front, higher deficits for the first 3 years; that should be the e-mail reply to that Government worker who is facing a shutdown because there is no balanced budget. There is not even a budget for 1996. So, to achieve their balanced budget, what do the Republican Party propose besides higher deficits and tax breaks? $270 billion in cuts in Medicare, $182 billion cuts in Medicaid, huge cuts in student loans, and that is what they call a balanced budget. Democrats say no tax breaks until the budget is balanced.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, what this budget debate is all about is the Republican plan to give a $253 billion tax break to wealthy individuals and to repeal the minimum corporate tax. And where does the GOP balanced budget plan leave real people, like Mrs. Johnson, who wrote to me and said: I will be 65 years old next month, but have been disabled for 9 years. At this point in time I'm very concerned about what will happen to me and my husband when changes in Medicare are made. My check is for $332, which doesn't cover the cost of the supplemental health insurance. My husband's check is $670 a month. At present he is quite ill and in the VA hospital. We tried to save for our retirement years, but I had to quit my job as a nursing assistant because of many health problems. This means we have spent more just to get by than we have in income. At this rate, our small savings will not go too far. I don't know what the answers are to these problems, but I desperately hope a solution can be found that won't make life harder.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Bonior] but I am also honored tonight to be able to rise and pay tribute to my good friend, John Dingell, and celebrate his 40 years here and all the accomplishments and achievements he has accomplished over these last 40 years. I came in when the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Weldon] was talking. I could not help but overhear the comment that there is always a degree of fear associated with Mr. Dingell, but it is a very respectful fear. This morning I was at a meeting and there were Democrats there and Republicans and Independents and business leaders from around town. We got to talking about the degree of animosity or the tensions that are on the floor as we are here during the holiday season, and how tempers grow short at times. The people and the Members who have been here the longest said, ``You know,'' because I had the honor of serving with Mr. Dingell on the Committee on Commerce, ``that there are one or two committees in this whole House where there is not the friction between the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee because of the way, when Mr. Dingell was chairman, he treated the Republicans, and the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bliley].'' They said the Committee on Commerce has set the example, and that example is truly, John Dingell, you always treat people in a professional, respectful, civilized manner, whether you are Democrat or Republican. We wish the other committees would take up from John's leadership and copy his style, because I think things would run much smoother, especially right now when time is short and tempers are getting a little frayed right now. So, John, you bring a degree of civility which is recognized not only within this body but also outside this body. I had the pleasure of serving in the Michigan legislature with John's son Christopher. Tonight we have touched upon John Dingell, Senior, John Dingell here present with us, his son Christopher, his wife Debbie. I think the Dingell family has given so much to this country and to Michigan that it is only right that we honor the whole family, because without the whole family, John Dingell could not be the individual he is that we have come to love and respect in this body. I appreciated it when I came here 3 years ago, the outward hand, and a big hand, I may add, was given to me by John Dingell. His wife, Debbie, befriended my wife, Laurie, and they have made our times out here when Laurie comes out so much more personable, so much more enjoyable to have them with us, to be our personal friends. Professionally, he has helped me immensely, being a young Member, learning the ropes, helping me to get on the Committee on Commerce, where I learned underneath John. He has become my mentor. I learn every time I have an opportunity to talk with him. He has helped me immensely. He has helped Michigan, he has helped northern Michigan, and he certainly has helped this country. I hope those who are listening tonight take a special note to those who would advocate term limits, how term limits is really the wrong thing for this country when you have someone like John Dingell. I hope they stop and understand that we speak here very affectionately of John Dingell as the individual, but also very affectionately of John Dingell and his expertise, and the knowledge that he brings to this institution; that once he leaves this institution, for whatever reason, that knowledge is lost, that expertise is lost. We cannot bring it back. The advice, the leadership, the moral compass he has set for this House, that is something that would be lost. So those who advocate term limits, we rely upon John Dingell and others who have been here more than three terms or four terms for advice on the complex issues of the day. Tonight I would like to say thank you. I consider it a high honor to know you, John Dingell, to have worked with you, to be a friend with you, to be a friend of yours, and I always appreciate it when that big paw of John Dingell gives me a slap on the shoulder or on the back. To a young Member like me, it means so much that Members who we respect and admire acknowledge us, give us some guidance, and always have a willing ear to help us in difficult times, and even when we are having some fun around this place. We look forward to many more years of working with you, John, and you have a fine family. Christopher and Debbie are great folks, and we really do appreciate your 40 years here. I have only been here for 3, but I have 37 more in me. I hope you do, too. I thank you very much.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. The GOP balanced budget plan, as the last speaker says, give $245 billion in tax breaks. Those tax breaks go to the wealthiest 1 percent of this country, and they repeal the alternative minimum corporate tax. Corporations do not have to pay taxes under their plan. I would like my colleagues to listen to what my constituents say. I got a letter from a constituent from Charlevoix, MI, that says: My wife is a bookkeeper at Charlevoix Hospital. I run a very small business in town. My wife will get a small pension from the hospital plus Social Security when she retires. I will only get Social Security. I have had 2 heart attacks, and I am a noninsulin diabetic. My wife, although working, does so while in much pain with a back ailment. With all we have to worry about in this present day, why do we have to be faced with a large group in the Congress that apparently is bent on making us suffer even more in our old age? People need help, not corporations. The wealthiest do not need tax breaks. We need to help ordinary people the, middle class. Balance the budget, yes, but not on the backs of the middle class.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. That was defeated. Pregnant women and infants who need some medical help, pregnant women, and infants, that amendment was defeated. Rural health clinics, I mentioned my rural district. In many areas the only access to health care is through Federal rural health clinics, so you can have access to it. That was defeated. You mentioned estate protection, the family farm liens; two separate amendments, both defeated. Alzheimer's disease. If you have a loved one, a parent or grandparents who have Alzheimer's disease, we always provided for their care in nursing homes under the Medicaid Program. That was defeated. Transitional benefits to move from welfare to work, to help you out, give you a little bit of health insurance coverage while you move off public assistance into the work force, that was defeated. Women with breast cancer who receive help under the Medicaid Program, at least allow them to have some help in coverage to pay their medical bills, and that was defeated. We tried in the Committee on Rules to make these amendments in order, but they were all defeated, not even an opportunity. What did we do? We did a motion to recommit, so the Democrat Party has been here, standing for just 10 basic elements to give you some dignity if you get ill, to provide for care for your parents or grandparents if they need a nursing home, and to leave you with a little something left in the estate. It was all defeated.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will continue to yield, the gentlewoman mentioned some of these things found in the fine print. Actually, in the Committee on Commerce, on which I and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] sit, the Democrats offered 10 amendments. If you wanted to block grant, OK, fine, but there are 10 areas we want to protect. Nursing home standards is one of them. We feel there is a need for nursing home standards across this country. Public children's hospitals. They provide money under Medicaid. Why can they not continue to have some funding? That was defeated. The cost-sharing for the poor seniors, to pick up part of their premium for part B, for Medicare, we wanted to keep that for poor seniors. That comes out of Medicaid.

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman will yield, in northern Michigan where I am from, it is about 35,000 families who will lose that earned income tax credit. I had a young mother who had three children. She was divorced. Even though her husband was paying child support, she said what the earned income tax credit meant to her. She said, ``When I would receive my earned income tax credit, it allowed me to get caught up on my bills. If I got a little behind in the last year, or if the car needed a new set of tires, I had money for a new set of tires for the car,'' so she could go back and forth to work, to support her family. It kept them a degree of respect and dignity and off public assistance. So this earned income tax credit, which is being eliminated just so we can give a tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country and the large corporations who no longer will have to pay the alternative minimum corporate tax, is really in this time of a Christmas season, really, if I can say the word ``heartless.'' I mean the folks who need the help the most, to give them a little respect, a little dignity, a little pride, to help them keep off of public assistance, to help them to make it on their own, the whole philosophy here is being rejected while we are giving the corporations a tax break. I really have a great, great problem with that aspect of this Gingrich contract on America plan. You were talking about Medicaid. Besides the earned income tax credit, Medicaid, if I may quote from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association which says, ``We fear that the Medicaid block grant program, health services for the most vulnerable populations, the elderly living in nursing homes, the poor, the children, may be jeopardized as hospitals who continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for these individuals, face reduced payments.'' What that means to me, if I can read between the lines here, not only the financial impact on these families that need the assistance, but in my district, northern Michigan, my biggest town is maybe 17,000 people. I have many, many, small hospitals. They have, as the letter says from the Michigan Hospital Association, they bear a disproportionate share of the burden for caring for these people. But under these block grant proposals, the Medicaid, the hospitals in the rural areas, which are usually my largest employers, will be faced with tremendous cuts, which means lost revenue and cuts in staff. Here is the mother who finally got through school, thanks to the earned income tax credit and a couple of other things, who is not working, and probably has the lowest seniority; she will probably be the first one to be laid off when all these cuts go through. The rippling effect here of not only the Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and they are cuts, make no mistake about it, it is going to be devastating on small rural communities as well as our urban areas.