Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the ``Cherry Capital of the World'' in the First Congressional District of Michigan. Celebrated for its sheltering harbors, its temperate climate, its beautiful countryside, and, of course, its cherries, Traverse City, MI, is celebrating its 150th birthday. As in many other Great Lakes cities, logging and sawmill operations were the first industries of Traverse City, and, like other Midwest lumber towns, a major fire was part of the city's history. Rebounding from every adversity, the city has grown to become the heart of one of the best resort and retirement areas on the Great Lakes. Traverse City as a settled community traces its origin to the arrival of Horace Boardman and other settlers from Chicago on board the schooner Lady of the Lake in 1847. Mr. Boardman built a sawmill, which was purchased by Hannah, Lay and Co. in 1851. Hannah and Lay would go on to open the community's first big general store in 1883, and Perry Hannah would serve as the first village manager of Traverse City. Some milestones in the city's history were outlined recently in its daily newspaper, the Traverse City Record-Eagle. This list is like a series of snapshots of a growing community in a growing nation, from the arrival of the first railroad in 1872 to the opening of the first airport in 1929, from the first log schoolhouse in 1853 to the opening of Northwestern Michigan College in 1951. What these milestones cannot convey is the warmth of the people and the amenable climate of the area, moderated by the waters of Lake Michigan. Winters, which are here less bitter than in much of the northern United States, have allowed cherry trees and apple trees to thrive. Around 1920 Traverse City was named cherry capital of the world, and the community's first cherry festival was held. The event continues to this day. A close look at Traverse City on its 150th anniversary reveals that its engine of economic growth is now fueled by tourism and the regular return of many summer vacationers, who are drawn to the beauty and temperate climate of the area. We see the growth of medical services, light manufacturing, and general commerce, cementing the community's role as the center of activity for northwestern lower Michigan. We see a community which has evolved from humble beginnings to become one of the best places in the country to live and work. Mr. Speaker, we salute Traverse City on its sesquicentennial anniversary.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is great to join the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] tonight as we talk, hopefully within the few nights we have left we can move on to another subject, not that the subject is not important, but I think we are putting together a package, we are finally putting together a package, and I think probably within the next 24 or 48 hours we will have some agreement. I could not help but notice as I walked over the storm clouds are brewing over there over the Washington Monument. It is starting to rain a little bit. I hope, and I truly hope, that as we move forward with this spending bill and also a tax cut bill, we are not going to let the rain come falling down in the next 5 years, we have a 5-year plan and the outyears, it is a 10-year plan, where we have huge deficits like we have seen. This has to be a fiscally responsible and a disciplined budget, or we are going to be back to where we were when I came here in 1993. We had a caucus tonight. We had a little bit of an outline of the tax cuts and also some of the spending reductions. Our friend from Texas is very correct on the DSH payments, disproportionate share, those are hospitals who serve people who do not have insurance or the elderly who are on Medicaid or Medicare. So we, the Federal Government, give them extra money to pay for the cost that is not captured by Medicare and Medicaid or the no insurance. And States like Texas which have a high DSH payment structure, really get hurt hard, at least in the first spending bill we have seen. So I am glad you are watching that closely. You are correct, Mr. Green has been working with us in the Committee on Commerce to make sure that happens. As we look at this in the next 48 hours or 24-48 hours, I really hope we will not rush through this legislation. I really do not want us to go back to the days of spending money we do not have, giving tax breaks to corporations and other people that we really cannot afford. I just cannot say enough, that if we could get it structured, targeted so we do have children's health credit and it is children's health coverage, there are 10 million children in this country that do not have health care. And the original proposal was to make sure at least we got half of them covered with this proposal. The bill that went through the House only did 500,000, the Republican bill, 1/20 of what we were trying to do or 5 percent. And with the agreement or the discussions about maybe putting the tobacco tax back on, which would capture some more money so we can pay for the practice program, that is the way we have to do it. We have to pay for programs. We have to do it with new sources of revenue and not tap old sources so we do not start running a deficit. On education, you have the HOPE scholarships, the President has stood firm with the Democrats. We are going to try to put some money in there. But the $500 per child tax credit is really going to be sort of the hallmark. We have been here for a number of nights trying to argue that the people on the earned income tax credit deserve that tax credit. The Republican Party has said that those people who are on the earned income tax credit should not get a $500 per child, because all they are looking for is another welfare payment. Let me tell you, I have a person in my district who called me the other night. She has two children under the age of 18. Unfortunately, she is divorced. Her ex-husband is not real prompt on his child support payments. But she is a very hard working woman, works a full-time job. When she first got divorced, the best she could do was a $4.95 an hour job, 40 hours a week. That is not even $200 gross per week. Then she got a better job where she made $7 an hour. Even at $7 an hour, that is only $14,560 per year. Every time, whether it was the $4.95 job or the $7 job, every time she got a paycheck, what did we take from that paycheck? We took State taxes. We took Federal taxes. We took Social Security out, FICA to pay for the Medicare. So she was taxed as she went along. At the end of the year, if she was fortunate enough when she filed her income tax, she got the earned income tax credit which basically says, if you are below a certain level, we will give you back some money. It is usually about a $1,000 to $1,500, depends on where you fall on your wages. What did it do? She said, I resent the Republican Party saying I am looking for a welfare handout. I was never on public assistance, even though I had two children. I was supporting them. My ex-husband was not real prompt on his child support payments, but I never went on public assistance. I worked. And I got a little helping hand from the Government. Not a handout, but a helping hand. And what it allowed me to do, she said, I remember 1 year very distinctly. She now has a good job and does not qualify for the earned income tax credit. She said, I remember 1 year, I usually used that EITC to catch up on my bills, but 1 year I used it, caught up on a couple bills, but I bought four tires for my car so I could travel back and forth to work so I could continue working so I could stay off public assistance. So I advised this young lady that we, the Democrats, would stand with her. And night after night we are going to be down here advocating that everybody who has a child should be entitled to that $500 per child tax credit, if you are making less than $75,000. That is the Democratic plan. We hope we will stand with her. But as I came over, I mentioned the storm clouds on the horizon. That is the way I see this budget. If you go back, I know the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] came after me and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] was here before me, I came in in 1992. That was the year, if you remember 1992, the first year President Bill Clinton was elected. What happened in 1992. Remember that? In 1992, we inherited an economy that had barely grown. There were very few jobs being created. The deficit had hit a record level. Mr. Boskin, who was Mr. Bush's economic advisor, I still have the report, the week before President Clinton took office Mr. Boskin predicted the deficit would be $322 billion. Real business investment in equipment and everything else was way down. It was growing at only about 2 percent a year. Savings and investment was down. Consumer confidence in the economy was down. Interest rates were rising. A 30-year Treasury note was over 7.5, almost 8 percent in 1992. Unemployment was higher than it had been in the 1990-1991 recession. Incomes were stagnant. Real average hourly earnings fell about 7 percent in this country. Remember, it is the economy, stupid, that is what they told us in 1992. So what did we do? We got Mr. Boskin's report. Those of us who came in in 1993 with the new President, January of 1993, when President Bill Clinton took office, the deficit was $322 billion. We said, we have got to get at this. We would like to give the middle class a tax break, but right now we have to get our fiscal house in order. In 1993, he worked with Congress to enact an economic program which would lower our deficits and put more investment in hard-working Americans in this country. The plan was passed in Congress with only Democratic support.

Mr. STUPAK. I know that is a part that is not clear in the budget agreement. Hopefully, it is something we can look at. I am sure when the gentleman gets back in his district, as in my district, a working class district, many people ask me, ``My son just graduated or my daughter just graduated from college, and, geez, I have all these loans and paying interest on it, can I at least get that deduction?'' So far I have not seen it, and I just thought maybe I missed something at the caucus today and thought maybe the gentleman picked up on that.

Mr. STUPAK. Interest on the future loans?

Mr. STUPAK. On the tuition part, is the gentleman saying there is going to be a look-back provision for those who already have a guaranteed student loan or who are paying off their college loans? Even if they are not in college now, let us say they graduated last year, are they going to be allowed to look back and at least take off that interest?

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would yield on that point, even if we put it in everyday terms, we have to remember the HOPE Scholarship is not just going to 4 year colleges but 2-year colleges or to go in some worker training program. An individual can get up to $1,500 underneath the President's HOPE Scholarship plan. I have two sons, my oldest son, Ken, will be graduating here in 1999, and he is a smart young man and he is going to do quite well in college and forward. But if we take a look at it, when he starts working in his adult life, it is estimated that he will have to change jobs at least eight times in his working career. Eight times. He is a very smart young man. Nothing wrong with his ability to learn. But the technology is moving so fast that those who begin employment in the year 2000, their jobs will become outdated. Outmoded. Technology is moving so fast, the job that people have today will be outdated and gone tomorrow. So they will need the education skills along with the social skills to adapt in an ever-changing society. So education is an investment. It is an investment in our future. And our children will need those educational skills, whether they are going to 2-year colleges or some other training programs or worker incentive program or worker enhancement programs so they can stay ahead of the curve. So as their job is outdated because of technology, they can adapt to tomorrow's world and continue to be a breadwinner and help out their family and pay their taxes and everything else. I say that half jokingly, but why has this economy done so well? Because people pay their taxes and we have revenues coming in, and, again, going back to that budget plan. So investing in the future is really a current investment in today's education, and will prepare us for tomorrow in that ever-changing world and the technology that will outdate our jobs, because the jobs that we have today will be outdated tomorrow. So it is a good point the gentleman makes, and I wanted to bring it more into the workplace setting, that education that we will need. Anything we can do at the Federal level, we should and we must.

Mr. STUPAK. In the 1993 budget vote, probably those of us who lived through it probably know it better than any of them, there were 60 some Democrats who came in with me, and after that vote my class now has maybe 40 Democrats left. We lost about half our Democrats. It was a tough vote. We did raise taxes on those whose gross income was more than $180,000. I can tell my colleagues, in my district in northern Michigan, that is 1,170 families, with the money we taxed, those we asked to pay more, the higher income folks. Over 32,000 families in my district got the earned income tax credit that I spoke of a little earlier. So we taxed those, we asked those who could give us a little more to give it. We helped invest in our people. Since then the deficit has fallen dramatically. In fact, at the start of this year it was about $70 billion. When we close our books here on September 30, 1997, it will be approximately, some people predict, as low as $35 billion, basically no deficit whatsoever. So we have cut the deficit with the help of the President and just Democratic votes by over 90 percent in less than 5 years. We have the smallest deficits since 1980. And as a percentage of our gross domestic product, it is the smallest it has been since 1974. In fact, the deficit is less than 1 percent of our gross domestic product here in 1997. So if you take a look at it, this deficit reduction was based on the Democratic plan. Now the GOP gets up, the Republican party gets up and says, we passed these budgets and that is what got everything down. Since they have taken over majority party, they have not passed one budget yet. We have been living on continuing budget resolutions, continuing on the same budget, the same plan that the Democrats passed in 1993. They have not passed a budget yet. I predict this year, even with this budget agreement, we probably still will not pass a budget because we will get hung up on some things. As you take a look at it, what has really happened? Not only did we raise some revenues and invest it in people here in this country, but we also, the public sector is much smaller. We moved forward to cut over 350,000 Federal employees with early retirements. We have the smallest Government since the days of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Since 1960, our people in this country, 130 million people, we are now over 260 million people so we doubled the number of people in this country who rely on services from the Federal Government, but we have the smallest Federal work force serving twice as many people since the days of John Kennedy. So we really did a yeoman job in doing this. But I am concerned that having done 90 percent of the work, we need to finish the job. And I do not want to rush into this agreement that is being put together, because we have to take the opportunity now to finally eliminate not just the deficit but the structural deficit so that we will be able to run surpluses in good economic times instead of deficits like we still are today and stay at least in a balanced budget during times of recessions. If you look at it, we have got to make sure any agreement makes very important investments in policy choices for our Nation's economic future. We need the savings and reforms that are in the spending bills, whether it is DSH payments or whatever it might be, to address the Nation's long-term budgetary challenge, past the 1998 election, past the election of 2000. If it is going to be a 10-year plan, let us look at it for a full 10 years and make sure we address our Nation's long- term budgetary challenges and needs. We are within striking distance of a zero deficit, a balanced budget the first time since 1969. It is not time now to abandon the responsible, effective strategy we put together in 1993. It cost us. It cost us Members and a lot of people questioned what we were doing. But it has worked, and it has worked well. So as we go here in the next 24, 48 hours and reach this agreement, let us reflect on where we have been for the last 4 or 5 years. Let us reflect on those days of the high deficits of, again, when President Bush left office, 322 billion, and how did we get it down here and make sure that the fiscal responsibility that was put in place in 1993 continues not just for today but for tomorrow and for our future. I am very pleased to join my colleagues here tonight and hope those folks who are Members in their offices and around this country listening to us tonight, ask that question, where is this agreement going to be in 4 or 5 years? Let us make sure it does not explode out. As I walked over, I could see those storm clouds. And I could also see those storm clouds in this budget. And we have to be cautious in how we do it. We have a line item veto. The first time ever the President has had a line item veto. That has been challenged in the courts. We have a number of issues that could turn this economic plan on its ear, and it is our responsibility, those of us who have the vote, to make sure it does the right thing. So I am very pleased the President is standing tough, that we are going to provide some health care for children in this country, education, and give them some hope to get a college education, and a $500-per-child tax credit, including those people who earn the earned income tax credit. I am proud to stand with the gentleman. And those are our parameters on the budget cuts, and let us make sure the future is just as bright as tomorrow is with this budget agreement. I thank the gentleman once again for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, the other day I talked to a hard-working woman in my district. Sue has two children under the age of 18. Unfortunately, she is divorced and her ex-husband is not too reliable on his child support payments. Sue is a hard-working woman with a full- time job. She made $200 a week on her first job, and then got a better job that paid her $7 an hour, where she grosses $14,500 a year. Every payday Sue pays her State taxes, Federal taxes, and her Social Security, FICA. When she filed her taxes, she received the earned income tax credit. She said the EITC helped her get caught up on her bills. It also in 1 year allowed her to buy tires so she could drive back and forth to work. Sue has never received public assistance. Because Sue received the earned income tax credit, and would receive the $500-per-child credit under the Democratic tax cut plan, Republicans say she is looking for welfare. Republicans say she should not receive the $500-per-child tax credit. Democrats see Sue as a hard-working American, and we will stand with her and her two children and give her the $500-per-child tax credit.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentleman would yield, on the capital gains tax, I think a very important aspect we should point out here is that underneath the Republican plan, the capital gains drops from 28 to 20 percent, then there is a 26 percent tax on the previously declared depreciation. It is called depreciation recapture, and it is a rather complex formula they have in their bill. Underneath the Democratic plan, the gentleman is correct that ours goes from 28 percent to 18 percent, and it is for those on their home, small businesses, family-owned businesses transferred within the family members and farms. The point being that we can drop our capital gains greater, from 28 percent to 18 percent, because it is targeted to the middle class and, therefore, we can give a larger aggregate tax break to more people. Underneath the GOP plan, they go from 28 to 20 percent then a recapture of 26 percent, and it costs us more money because it is geared towards the high income items; collectibles, intangibles, not real things like farms and homes and small businesses. So I wanted to make the point that underneath the Democratic plan, actually people make out better underneath the Democratic plan, just from 28 to 18, where the Republican plan is 28 to 20 plus a 26 percent recapture tax. So it is pretty interesting how it all breaks out, because it is all who is it geared for. Is it for the upper 20 percent of the middle class, to use the gentleman's five elements there. I have to go back to the old saying here, here is the upper 20 percent, and it goes to the old saying the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and those of us in the middle get squeezed. And I think the five fingers work pretty good for that. And that is why under the capital gains, the HOPE scholarship, or even just the earned income tax credit, the $500 per child credit, that is how the Democratic plan works out so much better and reinvests in people and back in this country.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman mentioned who is going to get it. Under their proposal, verified by Treasury and CBO and others, if you make more than $250,000, under the Republican plan they are going to get back $27,000. That is equal to the median income of the people in the First Congressional District of Michigan, which is $27,482. So they are going to give the wealthiest $27,000, which is equal to the median income in my district. And then those folks who are at the bottom 20 percent of the economic ladder, the people who depend on the earned income tax credit, who need the $500 per child, according to the same folks they are going to pay $63 more. So I think we have it reversed. That was the difference back in 1993 between the Democrat proposal and the Republican proposal. Which one worked? Ours did. We are now within striking distance of balancing the budget, first time since 1969. It is not the time to abandon the responsible, effective strategy of cutting the deficit and investing in our people that has resulted in the very strong economy we have today. That is the Democrat proposal. That is the President's proposal. I urge all my colleagues to stand with us. We have done it. We should take some credit for it, but at the same time let us be smart about it. Give the break to those who need it. Let us invest in our people, because they put it back in our economy. We have a strong, robust economy. And my colleagues know all the dire predictions: If we passed the Democrat plan back in 1993, there would be a great depression, massive unemployment. The deficits would be $700 billion. Just never materialized. So we stand here tonight proud as Democrats of what we have done. We have more to go, and we are not going to give up this fight because our strategy is sound. We invest in people, and that is where it has to be.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for once again organizing and participating in this special order, and also the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] and our friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. I would like to pick up a little bit on this earned income tax credit. In my district, the First Congressional District of Michigan, the northern half, actually the earned income tax credit, when we passed the deficit reduction bill in 1993, over 3,200 families in my district benefited from an expansion of the earned income tax credit. The median income, median family income, in my district is only $27,482. That is the median income. These are the folks, if you had a husband and wife and two children, they would be entitled to an earned income tax credit at that median income. It is quite large in my district. Like I said, over 3,200 families could take advantage of it. So what the Republican proposal said is if you are getting the earned income tax credit, you are not allowed to take the $500-per-child tax credit that is offered. When we look closely at their legislation, it is not just people on the earned income tax credit but other people who would not benefit from the $500-per-child tax credit. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] said they may be welching, but according to the Center for Tax Justice and Policy, 45 percent of the young people under the age of 18 in Michigan would not be allowed to even take advantage of the $500-per-child tax credit because of the earned income tax credit or their family income or for some reason. Look what we did in 1993. When we came here, and I came in 1993, I was elected in 1992, if Members take a look at what happened, we had an economy, and if Members take a look at Mr. Bush's economic adviser, Mr. Boskin back then, a week before President Bill Clinton took office Mr. Boskin projected the budget deficit to be $332 billion. Three hundred thirty-two billion dollars. So the President came in, and after getting a grip on what was going on around here, we proposed the largest deficit reduction package ever seen in this country. In that deficit reduction package we expanded the earned income tax credit, because we knew those folks were playing by the rules, working hard, trying to stay off public assistance, needed a little extra help. We gave it to them in that vote, in that deficit reduction package. It kept their heads above water, it kept them off public assistance. Every piece of income they received, whether it is an earned income tax credit or a per-child credit, because of their limited means, they spent it. They put money back into the economy. So that was sort of the plan that we did in 1993. Look what we did since 1993 to reach a balanced budget. Why are we here in July of 1997, 4 years later, talking about giving tax breaks because we are on the verge of balancing the budget? We have already done so much of the hard work to reach a balanced budget. Before President Clinton took office the deficit was a record number. In 1992 it was over $290 billion projected and headed up to $332 billion. In 1993 we worked with the Congress, the President did. We enacted his economic program to lower deficits and put more investment in people, in our own economy. The plan passed the Congress with only Democratic support. Members will remember, the Vice President had to break the tie in the Senate. But the Democrats, we stood by it and we paid for it. In the 1994 elections some people did not like the plan and we lost the majority of the House, but we did what was right for this country. Since then, since that vote in August of 1993, the deficit has fallen by 63 percent. We are now looking at a deficit of somewhere around $60 billion. Some are saying it may even be $35 or $20 billion when we close our books on September 30. We have the smallest deficit since 1981, and it is the smallest percentage of our gross domestic product. It is the smallest since 1974. So in fact the percentage of the deficit of our gross domestic product is going to be less than 1 percent of our gross domestic product here in 1997. Our friends that were out here an hour earlier, they were talking about how their budget is going to do this and that. They came to power here in 1995. Guess what? They have not passed a budget yet. We have not had one budget passed yet. It has been continuing budget resolutions, continuing budget resolutions, of what? The Democratic plan to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, invest in people, and invest in our economy. That is what happened because they have not passed their own budget. It has been, well, Members remember they could not pass their budget, so what did they want to do? Shut down the government. They did that. Just like on the disaster aid they did for the Dakotas, they got their own way. But because of what we Democrats did, we approached the task and we are in better shape from a fiscal point of view than any other of the major industrial nations in the world. Both our deficit and our public sector are substantially smaller. We have the smallest Federal Government since the days of John F. Kennedy, back in the 1960's, even though the country has doubled. We have less people than back then, we have less people providing more service to this country, over 260 million people in this country. We are clearly reaping the benefits of the success of cutting the deficit. We stand on the verge of it. So we are saying, if we are going to give tax credits, if we are going to give a $500-per-child tax credit, let us give it to the folks who really need it. Those folks who get the earned income tax credit still pay their Social Security taxes, still pay State taxes. In fact, all year while they are working they are still taking income taxes out of their check. At the end of the year if their income falls below a certain level and they have so many dependents and people making up their family, then they get an earned income tax credit. It is a benefit at the end, but we are going to deny them a per child credit? I have to share this with the Members. Just before I came down, I got a call. We were out here last week too, talking about this issue. A person from Marquette, Michigan, where I represent, was not happy with this idea of the earned income tax credit. I got to talking with this lady. She did admit that at one time she had the earned income tax credit. It was okay for her, and she assured me she was only on it for a year, but what was it there for? She needed a helping hand. It was not a handout, we gave her a helping hand. She got back on her feet, she was doing quite well. Now she wants a big capital gains tax. I am pleased she is looking at a capital gains tax, but at the same time, I am not going to leave behind those folks who are playing by the rules, working hard, trying to get ahead. They should get that $500-per-child tax credit and they should keep their earned income tax credit, because we will save money in public assistance, we will save money in education and in other ways, and give them some hope, give them some future. The earned income tax credit, we should expand it. We should put the $500-per-child tax credit in there. Those are the folks who should get it. Those are the folks we are trying to help out. Clearly, clearly, because of the Democratic plan that came forward in 1993, we are on the verge of balancing the budget right now. We are reaping the benefits of our success in cutting the deficit. We have an economy that in 4 years--before the President got here, there were very few jobs. Our deficits were at record levels. Business investments only grew, savings investments were all down, interest rates were up. Members remember those bleak old days. Now there is almost euphoria because we stand on the verge of doing it. We are saying, as Democrats, let us give that $500-per-child tax credit to those people who really need it, and let us reinvest not only in our country, but also in the people who helped to make it. Mr. Speaker, that is why I was very pleased to come down here tonight. To the lady that called me from Marquette, Michigan, I appreciate her call. I appreciate her honesty that even she at one time had to use the earned income tax credit. We should continue. Again, if we cannot reach out and help out our neighbor and the people who are providing the services, like the police officers and nurses, and even people who may work for city government or people who are disabled, remember, they pay taxes every day, in every shape and in every form, whether it is their Social Security tax, their FICA, their sales tax, their gasoline tax. We hear a lot about that. They are paying those taxes. I think we as a country, the richest country in the world, the most powerful country in the world, a country that has their deficit under control, thanks to the Democrats, we certainly should reach out and help out those folks. I was pleased to come down here tonight and join the gentleman in this special order. I appreciate all the hard work the gentleman has put in. Not only do we have the $500-per-child tax credit, but we have the education tax credit to help folks go to school. The Democratic plan is well balanced. It helps out those who need it, people whose earned family income is less than $75,000. I told Members, in my district it was $27,482. We look forward to passing the Democratic plan. I ask the President to stand firm with us. We will work this thing through. We will invest in people, we will invest in our economy. We will put consumer and business confidence back and continue it in this economy. As we have shown over the last 4 or 5 years, the Democratic plan has been the plan that has lifted this country out of its doldrums, and we are now on the verge of balancing this budget. We are going to finish the job and at the same time invest in those people.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of juvenile justice in this country. Everyone knows that juvenile justice and juvenile crime is a growing concern in this country. But with the majority party, it seems that they cannot make up their mind on how they want to approach this issue. Yesterday, in a bipartisan approach, we suspended the rules and we passed H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. The bill reauthorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and made several changes to that office to refocus the Federal effort to prevent juvenile crime before it occurs. The bill contained four core requirements which States must comply with: deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separating juveniles from adults in prison, limiting the time that juveniles spend in adult facilities, and addressing efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. It is a solid bill, and I was proud to support the bill. The bill further emphasized prevention and intervention through local initiatives, through local programs and projects which will address concerns in the local community, not something mandated by the Federal Government. It is our hope that these programs will discourage dropouts from high schools, reduce school violence, and prevent suspensions and expulsions. However, the bill failed to identify and appropriate money for this Federal effort to prevent juvenile crime. Yet earlier this year the majority party on basically a very partisan vote did appropriate $1.5 billion over the next 3 years in a juvenile justice bill that was named H.R. 3, which takes an entirely different approach to juvenile crime and juvenile offenders. H.R. 3 that was passed in May rewards States that implement the most harsh new mandates against juvenile offenders. States would be required to adopt a controversial mandate that many children as young as 15 would be tried as adults. It requires automatic transfer of 14-year- old children to adult court, and prohibits judicial review of these juvenile transfers. It would reward these States with $1.5 billion to punish kids and to treat them as adults, something that ensures that more 15-year-old children will end up housed with convicted adult criminals and convicted adult felons, greatly increasing the chances of rape, abuse, and suicide in our prison system, and increasing their chances of committing violent crime sooner upon release. Mr. Speaker, having been a law enforcement officer, and we have dealt with many law enforcement officers throughout this debate on juvenile justice in the last few months, prosecutors, judges, teachers, counselors, and parents all agree that there is another, better approach, a better way to prevent kids from even becoming criminals in the first place. Intervention and early prevention programs in schools and communities and recreation centers have proven to be the most effective way to prevent juveniles from getting involved in illicit behavior. In communities that employ prevention programs, the juvenile crime rates have fallen. Since an aggressive prevention program went into effect in Boston, not a single juvenile murder has occurred there since July 1995. It is a system that works. Let the local communities decide, give them the flexibility to do their job, and we should seek to encourage the development of these prevention programs in every community across America. In fact, the alternative bill to H.R. 3, the Democrat bill I sponsored is exactly the approach it takes. As the other body prepares to consider the juvenile justice bill and is currently working on it at this time, I urge them to look at the facts. When it comes to dealing with children, you get tough on crime by preventing criminal behavior, not by trying to lock up every juvenile offender. On May 8, I offered, along with the majority of Democrats, a substitute to H.R. 3 which stated that over 60 percent of the funding should go to communities for their local prevention programs. Two hundred Members of this House voted for this substitute, rejecting H.R. 3, the majority party's punishment-only approach. We need a balanced approach to fighting juvenile crime. We need a bill that is tough and is smart. Mr. Speaker, I just happened to receive in my office today this week's Time magazine. If Members look at the Time magazine this week, this debate that I just mentioned is highlighted in Time magazine starting on page 26, Teen Crime. ``Congress wants to crack down on juvenile offenders. That is H.R. 3, the majority party approach. But is throwing teens into adult courts with adult prisoners the best approach?'' As we go through it they cite the Boston case that we as Democrats relied on, and how to start a cease-fire to reduce juvenile crime to make people safe and secure in their communities and their homes. Then, unfortunately they show what a tragedy happened in Michigan here in the past few weeks. The bottom line of these three articles was basically there is an approach for juvenile offenders. There is a smart choice and a substitute for H.R. 3 that is the best way to go.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has approved a tax plan that ignores the facts and ignores the wishes of the American public. When a U.S. Treasury report revealed that the Republican plan was light on relief for working Americans and heavy on tax breaks for the rich, the Republican response was that the Treasury Department had somehow cooked the books, and they marched on with their plan. When Democrats and 15 million taxpaying families were being cut out of the GOP tax plan, the Republican response was to redefine these families as welfare families, and they marched on with their plan. House Republicans are marching by themselves. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows more Americans agree with the Democrats than the Republicans on the budget and tax negotiations. This finding was supported by a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the only thing being cooked are the tax plans, the GOP tax plans that hurt working Americans and tell untruths about hard working American families. Tax plans that hurt American families shall be rejected by Democrats and America.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. My amendment is strictly a limitation amendment which simply prevents the eviction of individuals at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore until the abandoned buildings or previous structures are removed and taken care of. Basically, what it says, Mr. Chairman, is my understanding right now over at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore there are over 100 abandoned buildings from folks who had leases with the Park Service. The Park Service was then to tear those buildings down and let the area go back to its natural state. Unfortunately, the Park Service has not had the money to clean up these abandoned sites, so today there are over 100 abandoned dwellings on the lake shore. There is no money to tear them down, to allow it to go back to its natural state. So they do not have money to do it, but yet we are still evicting people. We are still evicting people. We do not have money to clean up the past abandoned buildings. This year alone 11 more people will be evicted. What my amendment simply does, it is not a permanent amendment, but what it simply does is holds eviction for the length of this legislation, which is approximately 1 year. There is no reason in the world for an additional eyesore upon the Sleeping Bear National Lake Shore. There is no reason to have abandoned buildings. There is no reason to have deteriorating buildings when we cannot take care of the ones we already have. In a way, it is a 1-year moratorium. I understand that there is no objection. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for helping me along on this process; the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], and others who have worked with us on this process to put the amendment in this legislation.

Mr. STUPAK. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We are told, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is needed because it is the only way to stop native Americans from avoiding paying taxes. But in the debate we are having here today I hope we all understand that we have Indian tribes, we have individual members of that tribe, and then we also have just individual members of this country. This amendment, as written by the authors, is really directed at native American tribes, not individuals. So even if we pass this amendment, and I hope we do not, but even if we passed it, individuals can still continue to avoid taxes. Unfortunately, every day in this country people think of ways and schemes on how to avoid paying taxes. Our Constitution does recognize the sovereignty of native American tribes. Land that is placed in trust then goes underneath that sovereignty, and on that land there may not be taxes imposed by the Federal Government, just like the Federal Government does not impose taxes on each and every State in a direct manner, but we do on individuals. Each State in this country is a sovereign State, and each State has different workers' compensation laws, unemployment laws, single business taxes, and also competes against each other in attracting businesses. But this amendment's intent, I believe, is to start chipping away at sovereignty for native American tribes. The intent is to take away those sovereign rights, and to in fact tax the Native American tribes and not individuals. The authors indicate that the States can do more, and they are trying to level the playing field, but the States have in fact entered into many agreements; like my State of Michigan, they have entered into agreements. In fact, we have heard throughout this debate today that there are these 200 State tribal taxation agreements in 18 different States. If 18 different States can enter into 200 agreements, why cannot those States who feel they are coming up a little short on their taxation in their States enforce those agreements? The primary author of this agreement, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the Oklahoma Tax Commission has passed legislation as early as 1992 which does impose taxes and does impose taxes on cigarettes and gasoline in the State of Oklahoma. In fact, I have a letter here from Kathryn Bass, deputy general counsel, that says that ``in lieu of State tobacco and sales taxes in the amount of 25 percent of all applicable State excise taxes on all cigarettes and tobacco products purchased by the Nation or its licensees for resale in Indian country without reference to the membership or nonmembership status of the purchasing public.'' Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter of July 9, 1997, from Kathryn Bass to Mr. Baker-Shank. The letter referred to is as follows: Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, OK, July 9, 1997. Phillip Baker-Shank, Dorsey & Whitney, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Baker-Shank: Pursuant to your inquiry, this will confirm that the State of Oklahoma and the Choctaw Nation signed a Tribal/State Tobacco Tax Compact dated June 8, 1992, effective January 1, 1993. Pursuant to the Compact, the Nation agreed to make payments to the State in lieu of state tobacco and sales taxes in the amount of 25% of all applicable State excise taxes on all cigarettes and tobacco products purchased by the Nation or its licensees for resale in Indian country without reference to the membership or non-membership status of the purchasing public. The payments in lieu of state taxes are collected by the wholesalers selling cigarettes and tobacco products to the Nation and its licensees and are included in the wholesale purchase price of the products. The Compact is authorized pursuant to 68 O.S. Sec. 346 et seq. Very truly yours, Kathryn Bass, Deputy General Counsel. So they put in a 25-percent payment in lieu of taxes. That is sort of a creative way in which one State has addressed this issue. I think each and every State should do it that way. My own State of Michigan, we have come up with ways to place not only excise taxes but also sales tax on whether it be gasoline, tobacco sold by native American tribes or individuals within our State. The problem that we have here is really a State issue. The States have shown the ingenuity to address this issue. I do not want the Federal Government, this Congress or anyone else telling Michigan how to enter into these agreements with native Americans. I do not want the Federal Government telling us how to do our job back in our States. We have creative State legislators. We have creative Governors. We have creative State tax commissions. They are the best to issue or address this issue. I do not believe it is necessary for us, the U.S. Congress, to start telling the States how to address this issue. With that, Mr. Chairman, I see this as an attack on the sovereignty of native American tribes throughout this Nation. I would hope that we would defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In response to my friend from Minnesota, this has been going on for some time. This lake shore property in my district, there are over 100 abandoned buildings. Today is the first time I heard where the Park Service, not from the chairman, but we had a letter from the Park Service that said suddenly we have money. For 3 years we have been trying to address it. If this is the only way we can address this issue, then this legislation has a lot of merit because we at least got to addressing the issue after 3 years. It is not just my district. I know in Delaware and Indiana and other places we have to address it and there has to be some kind of fairness. If we are telling people their time is up, they have to move off, and it is just going to sit there, for a lot of these folks this lake shore property goes through two counties in my district. They are the eyes and ears, and they help out the Park Service and they keep the buildings maintained. I think that is better than some abandoned building that becomes an attractive nuisance and we have liability issues. So while I understand the concerns about all the limitations of only 1 year, at the same time I think we have to start addressing it in a very practical manner. I appreciate the cooperation I have received from everyone on this issue.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding me the time. Let me compliment everyone who has worked so long and hard on this bill to finally bring forth a juvenile justice bill which will focus on prevention, early prevention, and early detention if necessary. I rise in support of this legislation, and in my support of this legislation I have a word of caution for the U.S. Congress, because I believe this bill is really a day late and a dollar short. This bill is a step in the right direction, although being a small juvenile step. It is in the right direction because this bill will address early prevention, early detection of juvenile crime. Thus far in this Congress what we have seen with the Republican majority was H.R. 3, which was passed in May 1997 over strong objection on this side of the aisle, because what we did was put $1.5 billion over 3 years to lock up everybody. Now the Federal Government really has no role in locking up juveniles when we only handle about 197 juveniles every year anyway. Where the focus should be, and we know these statistics, one out of every five juveniles are involved in serious juvenile crime, should be at the local level, the local initiative to try to have early prevention and early detention. It is necessary that we have this type of bill. I wish we would have had it earlier. I wish this bill had money placed in it instead of just a sum certain, because it is necessary. The only way for people to feel safe in their homes and their communities is to prevent crime in the first place, prevent it before it occurs, prevent it before the juvenile is caught up in a never-ending juvenile justice system, and this bill will address that through early intervention. So H.R. 1818 takes a step and one of the first steps in prevention and early intervention, but it is only a step. When it comes to funding it, it just says a sum certain. I am certain, after 12 years of working the streets and highways of Michigan in law enforcement, that we will never arrest our way out of juvenile crime. We must address it at the early initiatives and give flexibility to local units of government for local concerns and local needs and local issues.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders- Bass amendment which would restore much deserved funding to the PILT Program. PILT Program, payment in lieu of taxes. Each year thousands of counties across this Nation lose out on millions of dollars in property tax revenue simply because the Federal Government owns the property. While the PILT Program was established to compensate for this fact, it is woefully underfunded. Since it was adopted in 1976, the PILT Program has neither kept pace with its authorized funding levels, nor with the true costs of providing services in support of the Federal lands. We have repeatedly tried year after year to increase PILT payments, and unfortunately there is never any money for the PILT payments. And, as I said, it has not kept pace with the funding levels, the authorization levels, and that is why there is strong support of the Sanders-Bass amendment. But if my colleagues take a look at it from an equity point of view, local governments have a right to be compensated for untaxable land which is owned by the Federal Government within their jurisdiction, for providing services to Federal employees, their families, and to the users of the public lands. PILT funds are used by these communities for important programs such as education, law enforcement, emergency search and rescue, fire and emergency medical services, solid waste management, road maintenance, and other health and human services. In my district, Mr. Chairman, there are many counties where the Federal Government is the largest land owner, and our school districts cannot even bond to build a new school because most of the land is encumbered by the Federal Government and is nontaxable. Therefore we do not even have a tax base to put forth a school system and to maintain a school system. Therefore I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for equity by voting in favor of the Sanders-Bass amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment. This amendment would have a devastating impact on the health of our national forests, jobs, small businesses, recreation, education, local government. In a letter from the Society of American Foresters, one of the oldest conservation organizations in the world and which is widely respected as the leader in forestry science, they state that the Kennedy-Porter amendment would have a negative impact on forest health. The letter states, and I quote: Forest roads are the single most important infrastructure component that supports natural resources professionals in the maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems. In addition, the Kennedy-Porter amendment would have a devastating impact on jobs and small businesses across the country. According to the Forest Service, timber harvesting annually supports over 64,000 jobs, which results in over $337 million in Federal income tax revenues. Small businesses purchase two-thirds of the timber harvested in national forests. Contrary to what supporters say of the Kennedy-Porter amendment or as they have tried to portray, 97 percent of forest roads are open for recreational use. That means for everyone from hunters to fishers, mountain bikers, snowmobilers, hikers, and most importantly, of course, fire fighters. All benefit from forest roads. Finally, supporters claim that this forest program is a subsidy. This is blatantly false. As has been repeatedly said tonight, the Price Waterhouse report concludes that the road program is not a subsidy. Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy-Porter amendment is well intended but complete ill-advised. Those of us who depend upon the forest for our living in northern Michigan, we know. I urge all Members here to oppose this amendment and cast a vote in favor of local government, forest health, small businesses, recreation, education and jobs.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I was in my office catching up on some mail and signing some letters, and I listened to the speakers in the previous special order and the beginning of this special order, and I was so pleased to see so many of our Democratic freshmen here, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Snyder], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson], and the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] joining with us here. Something is sort of lost in this whole debate here. I remember when I came in in 1993 with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], our concern then was the budget deficit and how big it was. It was $293 billion. I remember that first year, our first year here in Congress, still unsure of what had to be done and procedures of the House, but we were very concerned about reducing the deficit. It was about $289, $293 billion. We came up with the world's largest deficit reduction plan. Our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to call it other things, but it was the largest deficit reduction plan. I remember being in this Chamber on a very long August night trying to get that package through; and we pushed it through, strictly Democratic votes, and we did it by one vote. It went to the Senate and they passed it eventually by one vote. In fact, the Vice President broke the tie. We promised in 1993 we would lower that deficit, and we were at $293 billion when we came in. And 4\1/2\ years later we are down to, now the latest prediction is we will be at $45 billion on September 30 when we close this fiscal year. How did we get there? It was because the Democrats came together with a Democratic President, and we did a tough vote. We lost some Members over that and we are now in the minority, but it was the right thing to do for the country. I think the thing that is lost in this whole debate is how did we get from $293 billion on the verge of balancing the budget? I think that has often been lost. And we as Democrats should take credit for standing up, taking the tough vote. I remember all the predictions: We will throw this country into complete chaos, economic depression, massive unemployment, there would be rioting in the streets. And the economy has gone crazy. It has given business a shot in this administration, a shot of confidence in the U.S. Congress that we knew what we were doing; that we are finally going to get this deficit under control. And we have done it. I think in this whole debate we have to remind ourselves how did we get to the verge of balancing the budget. And many of us, while we may have voted for the President's plan to give a tax break, many of us feel strongly that we should finish the job. In less than 12 months we could finally balance this budget and then give the tax breaks. I may have only been here 5 years, but I know in the U.S. Congress tomorrow never comes. We are always worried about today. And we are spending money with these tax breaks that we do not have. But we are predicting a robust economy for the next few years. So if we are going to do tax breaks, they must be so specifically focused because, again, the gentlewoman from California knows that when we came here in 1993, what was it, the rich were getting richer, the poor were getting poorer, and we in the middle class were getting squeezed. So even with the bill put forth by the Democratic Party, it is a very targeted bill, targeted to help those people who need the help, not give away the money, not spend money we do not have. We have done it over 5 years with a very controlled fiscal policy. We must continue it and it must continue in any kind of tax breaks. Now, if I can go to the First Congressional District of Michigan, which I proudly represent, that is the north half of Michigan, I will tell my colleagues the median family income in my district is $27,482. In my poorest county, Keweenaw County, it is $18,459. That is the median income. And these are the folks we are trying to help. My State, the State average is $36,562. Again, my congressional district, the average is $27,482. So there is a big difference. I have a very rural, sparsely populated district. So take a person or family income of $27,000, or let us be realistic here, a working mother, a mother with two children, who probably has an annual salary of $17,000 or $18,000. She receives $2,316 from the earned income tax credit last year, $2,300. Remember, that was in the deficit reduction package we did. We helped out those who needed help; $2,300 she receives. Under the Democratic bill that we passed earlier, she would get $600 from the child credit for 1998, 1999 and 2000, in addition, to her earned income credit. So she would get about $3,000. This is a mother, two children, trying to work and stay off welfare. So we are going to give her approximately $2,900. Under the Republican bill, what would she get? Nothing. Nothing. In fact, she loses money because they take money away under the earned income tax credit because she already has an earned income tax credit. The $600 she would have received, they take away. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. We in the middle class get squeezed. How about a community college student? We were talking about education, the gentleman from Illinois and others did. Let us take a college student who completes his first year of college. Tuition in my district is about $1,400 a year. Parents making $75,000 a year; under the Democrat bill, his parents would have received for that first year of college tuition about $1,100 in tax credit for his community college. He would be eligible for 20 percent tax credit for tuition costs in his 3d and 4th year. Under the Republican bill, what do they receive for sending their son to community college for $1,400 a year annual tuition? He would receive $800, not the 1,100 we would give, and the third and fourth year they get nothing. There is nothing there. What do they do for the 3d and 4th year if they want to get a 4-year degree? So these proposals we speak of, the tax breaks, have to be very targeted, very specific, and be real to the people we represent. That is what I think the Democrat plan does. We do not want to see the rich get richer but we hope they would help us out. We took the tough votes, and I just wish that we would just finish balancing the budget and if there is money left over, give some tax breaks. But if we are going to give these tax breaks, then let us make sure the folks who need the helping hand, not a handout but a helping hand, get a little help. We are a rich country, we are doing well, the economy is doing well. Can we not help out the folks who need a little extra? These figures about median family income, that is my district. I have the top half of Michigan, 43 percent of Michigan. It is a large State with a median income of only $27,000. That is what we are talking about. These are not folks who have all kinds of stocks in the stock market, do not have to worry about capital gains tax or estate taxes over $600,000. That is just not the folks I represent. And I would hope those are the folks we help out instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle class getting squeezed. Again, as I say, I was down writing and signing some letters and I could not help reminding myself that 1993 was pretty bleak around here. We took the tough votes and we are on the verge of balancing. Let us balance this budget and worry about the tax breaks later, but if we are going to do it, let us be very specific for the middle class. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for all his hard work in this area, and the rest of my colleagues joining me here tonight, and I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss this tax package and where we have been and where we are now.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity this weekend to attend an unusual birthday party in my congressional district in Michigan for a very special individual. This month we celebrate the birth of Frederic Baraga, born 200 years ago in a town called Mala vas in what is now the independent nation of Slovenia. Frederic Baraga was a pioneer who wandered in the wilds of the Great Lakes area in the early 1800's, braving the snows and bitter winters, the swamps, and swarms of insects of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Frederic Baraga was a teacher; a learned man who mastered Slovenian, English, Latin, German, French, and Italian, he went on to speak the native American Ojibwa language, eventually writing a grammar and an Ojibwa dictionary that is still in use today. Frederic Baraga was a missionary, whose work was God's work. He left a family that had gained a title of nobility in Europe, taking the vow of poverty and accepting the dangers of a new world to bring the Christian faith to the New World, America. Frederic Baraga was a man, with the afflictions and failings of a man, but he was unique in his dedication to his mission and to his faith. The dedication of this man, who stood 5 feet, 4 inches tall and referred to himself as ``the little missionary,'' has earned the love and respect of the people of northern Michigan, who are supporting efforts to canonize him a saint in the Catholic Church. There are many details of his life which have been passed down to us, tales of his falling through thin ice in mid-winter on his religious rounds, stories that paint a picture of a man with a twinkle in his eye and a tendency to break up a long day of work or travel with a midday nap. With these anecdotes we catch a glimpse through the mists of history of a real person, not merely a symbol of an ideal. Mr. Speaker, we in northern Michigan look at Bishop Frederic Baraga as more than just our native son. A man of Europe, later a man of the native American people of the Great Lakes area, he may finally become a man of the world, whose humility, dedication, commitment to learning, and qualities of character are a model for all of mankind, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The nation of Slovenia has honored Bishop Baraga with a commemorative stamp. I have asked the U.S. Postal Service to give new consideration to a similar honor. I know this review process takes time, but I and the supporters of the efforts to honor Bishop Baraga, look forward to the day when we can send our invitations to another birthday party for this very special individual with stamps bearing his visage.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives and the American public the 125th birthday of a proud historic town in the First Congressional District of Michigan, the town of Michigamme. This town, with a population of just over 300 residents, may be considered small by conventional standards, but it holds a big place in the history of the central Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in the hearts of the people who have known it. Michigamme was founded in 1872 by Jacob Houghton, the brother of the famous Dr. Douglas Houghton, after he discovered iron ore deposits there. Mr. Houghton became the owner and operator of both the iron ore mine and the sawmill of Michigamme. Iron ore mining and timber industry jobs brought hundreds to Michigamme, but the economic panic of 1873 and a forest fire soon reduced the number of available jobs. Michigamme exhibited its resilience as a community by reopening the sawmill and resuming mining. The town bounced back and the population swelled to 1,800 by 1882, a record that has stood intact since that time. In 1881, F.W. Read bought the Michigamme sawmill, and the mines of the area were purchased by the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., and the Ford Motor Co. near the turn of the century. Through the early 20th century, Michigamme's rich veins of iron ore and statuesque first-growth timber provided the town with solid industrial economic base. Michigamme's industrial base was not the only reason that people settled there. Michigamme's location on the shores of beautiful Lake Michigamme have also contributed to its growth and history. The residents of Michigamme have added to the beauty of the town by encouraging a community for the arts and crafts, with several operating gift shops and an annual Christmas Market, widely attended by the surrounding communities. Michigamme has been called the Renaissance Village, because of the artistic community it fosters. The residents of Michigamme know that this is a special place that they can call home. Mr. Speaker, the residents of Michigamme exemplify the small-town character and spirit which we hear our colleagues speak about with nostalgia in today's fast-paced and impersonal culture. The people of Michigamme, MI, are proud of where they came from and of who they are. They are the type of people who honor their history and look forward to creating a future for their town. They are the type of people who know their neighbor and who call him or her a friend. I would like to extend my congratulations to the people of Michigamme on the 125th birthday of their town, and I am here today to ask my colleagues to join me in wishing them the best for many years to come.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when I first got here back in 1993, it was August of 1993, the Democratic President and the Democratic House put forth a deficit reduction plan. At that time we did not receive any votes from our friends on the other side of the aisle. We received no Republican votes. Mr. Speaker, that deficit reduction plan that we passed in 1993 has worked. The deficit of this country was 290-some billion dollars. We are now down to $67 billion. We are on the verge of finally balancing this budget. Many of us feel, since we are so close to balancing this budget, that there should be no tax breaks until we actually balance the budget. Unfortunately, because of agreements made, we are going to have a balanced balance agreement, at least we have a blueprint, and now we can see the problems developing in that blueprint. Now we have two tax bills. One would give huge breaks to the wealthiest 5 percent of this country while working families struggle to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, underneath this 5-year balanced budget plan we have one bill for entitlement reform and one bill for tax breaks. But if we are going to give tax breaks, they must be limited, they must be targeted, and they must benefit families. Unfortunately, the GOP tax plan benefits the wealthiest 5 percent of this country. By that I mean those people who make more than $250,000 a year. On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the New York Times warned that the GOP plan would, and I quote, ``Shower tax cuts on the Nation's wealthiest families.'' But as conservative political commentator Kevin Phillips, who worked in the Reagan White House, warned last week, he said that the Republicans are determined, quote, ``to slash the capital gains tax, the estate tax, the corporate alternative minimum tax, and some other provisions important to those people who write campaign checks.'' He said that on the Morning Edition of National Public Radio on June 19. Last Sunday, this past Sunday, President Clinton urged Republicans instead to work with Democrats and pass a tax bill that, quote, ``meets the real needs of middle-class families providing help for education, for child rearing, and for buying and selling a home. That is the kind of targeted tax relief we should have.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill has and will have a devastating impact on working families. This week we are probably going to have this debate even more on the House floor. This week the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities finds that the combined GOP tax bill and budget bill gives a $27,000 a year annual windfall to the top 1 percent of this country. The top 1 percent gets a $27,000 windfall, and the bottom 20 percent of American families will lose, will lose, Mr. Speaker, $63 under the Republican tax plan.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, how can we endorse products manufactured by slave labor, child labor, and prisoners? We as United States citizens and as citizens of the international community, we cannot, we should not endorse these Chinese labor practices. We must reject trade agreements whereby low-cost products of countries which lack effective labor laws are sold in the United States at considerable profit for these countries. My second concern involves the trade deficit with China. This trade deficit now stands at $40 billion. It is expected that our trade deficit with China will exceed Japan's within the next 12 months. In 1989, it was only $3 billion. Less than 10 years later, it is now $53 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is not a trade policy. It is a trade giveaway. I hope we will all vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 79.