Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason we don't allow it in is because the standard is to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a fair and honest doubt growing out of the evidence or the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence comes in when evidence illegally obtained is excluded from the courtroom procedure. It is not the subjective standard that the gentleman argues, but rather a very, very profound standard with parameters on it that the Supreme Court gives to all of us and the Constitution has guaranteed. Let us be clear about this: The ABA studies at the time of the Leon case found that less than 1 percent of the individuals arrested for felonies are released because of illegal search and seizures, less than 1 percent. So there is a huge standard here, a very sacred standard, and we should not disregard it. Your H.R. 666, while well-intended, puts a good faith exception, and we do not know what that good faith is, other than the good faith as articulated in a police report. But the Conyers amendment says take the highest authority we have, the Supreme Court, let us codify it, and bring some reasonableness to the standard. Believe me, if we are wrong on one or two, so be it. But less than 1 percent. Not everyone is guilty. You do not know when the resources of government will be turned on you.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, how can one get on the floor and say under this law we all knew in Evans versus Arizona the gentleman was guilty? That is the kind of standard we cannot have.

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

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I know the gentleman has been working on the crime task force with myself and many others, and you have been deeply involved in this. Do you know how many police officers will be allocated or earmarked under the Republican crime bill we are debating this week?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin the debate on a new Republican crime bill. There will be six bills, and we expect the debate to go for a week to 10 days. One of the first victims in the new GOP crime bill will be cops on the street, or community policing as we know it. Cops on the street may be the first victim actually victimized and mugged under the new proposed crime bill. In August 1994, a crime bill was passed by this body. Even though I may not have supported the final committee conference version of the crime bill, I believe that the community policing program is an invaluable tool in the fight against crime. No one law will stop crime, no one program will stop crime in this country. The revamping of the crime bill that is going to be proposed in the next day on this floor certainly will not stop crime in this country. In order to stop crime we must all join in the fight against crime. We must all share that responsibility. Police officers cannot do it alone. We must each work in our respective communities and work with the police officers if we are going to have an impact on crime. That is what community policing is all about, law enforcement officers living and working in their beat, in their patrol area, to gain the respect and trust of the citizens they serve. To gain that trust, respect and confidence, community policing requires the law enforcement to actually live in crime, the initial complaint is handled by the police officer. The follow-up investigation is handled by the same police officer. That same police officer goes to the prosecutor to secure the warrant, and that is the same police officer that goes with you at the time of a criminal trial, if one takes place. What community policing does is personalizes crime to build the trust and confidence between the community and a police officer. Your crime will no longer just be your crime, but it will be a crime that will be shared with your police officer. You are working with, you are standing with, you are living with, not only your community, but you are living with the police officer who is there to serve you. As a police officer for almost 12 years myself, we had an old saying back when I was working the road: ``If you want to know what is going on in any community, ask a 12-year-old kid on a bicycle, for they know what is going on in their communities.'' They will not tell the police officers what is going on until there is that confidence, that trust and that respect. In the last crime bill, the community policing program, commonly referred to as Clinton Cops, was a program that is being used throughout this nation. It has only been in effect for the last 3 or 4 months. But the forerunner to this Clinton Cops program was back in 1978 and 1979, in the Department of Justice, a pilot program which was put forth in northern Michigan. Northern Michigan, my district, is a sparsely populated area in the north end of Michigan, and three rural, sparsely-populated townships were put together to form a community policing program. The program was a smashing success, with over 70 percent of all the reported crimes being solved. Unsolved crimes from years past were cleaned up by the community police officer. In fact, in this case, it was a Michigan State police trooper, and he was referred to as the resident trooper. It was the first community policing program in Michigan. Community policing is now currently at work in communities as rural as northern Michigan with our three townships or in the highly populated cities such as Houston. Community policing works because police officers live in the community and near the neighbors which they police. These police with the faith and confidence and trust of the people they serve, their constituents. It is one program that is highly successful. To dismantle the President's community police program would be a crime in and of itself. It will be dismantled if the votes hold up as they have in recent days, not because there is waste in the program. It will be dismantled not because it does not work, because we all know it does. The reason why it will be dismantled will be purely for political reasons. In a crime bill, we need a combination of police, prevention and prisons. A balance of these three principles will be most successful in fighting crime. We must leave community policing intact. We must leave the Clinton Cops program alone. It may only have been in existence for 3 or 4 months, but in city after city, in rural area throughout this country, it has worked.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, now I have heard it all. Now I have heard everything. At his press conference today Speaker Gingrich was asked about the minimum wage. He was asked if he plans to support a minimum- wage increase. You know what he said? He said we cannot raise the minimum wage. We can't raise it above $4.25. And do you know why? He said because of the problems with the Mexican economy. He down in Mexico. Does the Speaker really believe that we should base our pay raises in America on what is happening in Mexico? That Mexico should be our benchmark for wages? That 58 cents an hour should be our standard? That is two quarters, one nickel, and three pennies, held together by a bunch of tape. Why does he want to continue to keep the American worker down? Mr. Speaker, it is time we stand up for working people in this country. It is time we reward people for their hard work. It is time we raise the minimum wage.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, during the past few weeks we have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about dismantling many of the programs that Democrats formed during our 40-year service as the majority party. I know some of my friends on this side do not want to hear this, but during the past 40 years, when Democrats controlled the House, programs were enacted that helped millions of people. A few examples on this long list include: the GI bill, Medicare, Medicard, civil rights legislation, improved minimum wage standards so people can work and get off welfare, and student financial aid. When the other side discusses, with some disdain, about the Democrats' 40-year rule, remember, some great things did happen. Today, on February 1, 1995, I would like to highlight a special day commemorating something that happened 40 years ago today: My wife, Laurie Olsen, was born. Today is Laurie's 40th birthday, and as she and I, along with her parents, Ken and Elaine Olsen, our sons, and many of our friends celebrate her first birthday under a Republican controlled Congress, let us not forget many of the important programs enacted during Laurie's first 40 years that have helped the American people. Mr. Speaker, happy 40th birthday, Laurie.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise today, to urge my colleagues to support the Gephardt and Wise substitute amendments to the Barton balanced-budget amendment. I have supported a balanced-budget amendment before my election to Congress, and I am going to support one today. But as long as I have believed in a balanced-budget amendment, I have also believed that Social Security is a sacred contract between the Government and its people. That is why I offered my own substitute balanced budget amendment. While not made in order by the House Rules Committee, my substitute, like the Gephardt and Wise proposals, specifically exempted Social Security from budget cuts and eliminated the unconstitutional and unworkable super majority requirement for raising revenue. Not specifically exempting Social Security in the text of a balanced budget amendment--as the Republicans fail to do in their proposal--is to place this contract directly in the path of the uncertainty of the annual budget process and subject the program to possible cuts. That is irresponsible and unacceptable. My constituents in northern Michigan understand that balancing the budget will require difficult choices and painful cuts. Almost to a person, they have indicated to me that they are willing to make the tough choices. But people in Michigan also understand a promise. Simply put, cutting Social Security is the same as cutting the Federal Government's credibility. Social Security is not just statistics--it is the only thing which stands between thousands of elderly Americans and true poverty. In Michigan, more than 1.5 million people receive these benefits--that is 1.5 million real people with real bills to pay and very real obligations to meet. The Republican leadership claims that the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 17, offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Flanagan, would protect Social Security from cuts. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Flanagan resolution were currency, it would be the peso--not worth a heck of a lot. As we all know, this resolution has no force of law, and is really nothing more than saying to our Nation's senior citizens ``I know we've pointed a loaded gun at you, but we promise we won't pull the trigger-- at least not until the Nation's bill for the tax breaks for the rich and spending in the GOP Contract With America comes due.'' Mr. Chairman, the Gephardt and Wise substitutes are tough and responsible and keep the promises that our Nation has made. I urge my colleagues to support these balanced-budget substitute amendments.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to express my concerns about the proposed Mexican bailout. Proponents of NAFTA suggested that its passage would create jobs in America, promote free-market economics in Mexico, raise living standards in both countries, and encourage Mexico's move toward democracy. Those who thought that NAFTA would be a magical elixir were wrong. NAFTA has not fulfilled its promises because the current political and economic conditions in Mexico make that fulfillment impossible. The same conditions that existed in Mexico when we debated NAFTA exist today. Necessary changes can only happen one way--through the Mexican Government. But Salinas did not do it, and President Zedillo has given no indication that he will be any different from Salinas. First, this bailout will not save NAFTA. Mexico's problems run far deeper than short-term debt. Second, this bailout will not help restore international confidence in the Mexican economy. Third, this bailout will not help Mexico's or our working and middle class. The direct beneficiaries of this package will be members of the Mexican business and political elite seeking to protect their wealth against further devaluation of the peso. When the taxpayers of the United States are asked continuously to prop up the Mexican economy--and with continued devaluation of the peso, there is no indication that this will be the last time--they deserve some accountability. While I do not believe this $40 billion will be the last for Mexico, the way I see it, there is only two ways that this agreement is going to be palatable to the majority of Members. First, stringent conditions need to be placed on the issuance of such a loan guarantee to ensure prompt repayment--and these conditions must be part of the legislative language. The generosity of the United States has often been our own worst enemy in getting repaid. We have consistently dealt with international debt owed to us through reduction or cancellation--ultimately to the detriment of our taxpayers. There must be guarantees that this loan will be repaid in full and in a timely manner. and tangible in return for our continued generosity. This can be best accomplished in the areas of law enforcement and environmental protection. The United States is party to an extradition treaty with Mexico, which provides for extradition of Mexican nationals who cross the border and commit offenses. However, in practice, the Government of Mexico does not extradite its own nationals. According to article 9 of the Extradition Treaty Between the United States and Mexico (31 UST 5059; TIAS No. 9656), singed on May 4, 1978: Neither Party shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals, by the executive authority of the requested Party shall, if not prevented by the laws of the Party, have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so. The problem is that Mexico has a habit of not deeming it proper to extradite its citizens who commit crimes here in the United States. While under the treaty, at least four United States citizens have been extradited to Mexico for crimes committed there, no Mexican citizens have been extradited to the United States for crimes committed in this country. As a member of Chairman Condit's Information Justice Subcommittee in the 103d Congress, I was present at a hearing regarding the extradition of one Serapio Rios. On September 14, 1992, Mr. Rios crossed into California, kidnapped and raped a 4\1/4\-year-old girl, and fled back into Mexico to hide behind this so-called extradition treaty. As the distraught mother testified: It took nine months to get extradition papers processed and served to the Mexican government. We have a treaty with Mexico, but Mexico has never extradited one of its citizens back to the U.S. for trial. My government should press for change. If this mother were here today, she would say to you, three years later, that the Mexican Government did not find this violent felon extraditable. The Mexican Government knows where Rios is, but they refuse to extradite him, even after the Mexican Government promised a Member of this body in exchange for the Member's NAFTA vote, that Rios would be extradited. I want to let this mother, and those that have similar stories, know that they are not forgotten. I feel that this proposed bailout presents us with a unique opportunity to press for change. While it may not be feasible at this time to change the language of the 1978 treaty, President Zedillo needs to get the message that $40 billion of U.S. cooperation demands reciprocity. The area of extradition is one place where the Mexican Government can show good faith by extraditing Rios and the Mexican perpetrators who are accused of committing 24 major crimes such as rape and murder, here in the United States, and then flee across the border to Mexico because they know Mexico will not extradite them under the 1978 treaty. There should be no U.S. loan guarantee until Rios and other indicted perpetrators are brought to justice in the United States. In addition to the question of law enforcement, language protecting our natural resources must be included in the bailout language. NAFTA promotes free trade in resources by limiting the rights of a government to enact measures restricting such trade. Chapter 3 of NAFTA sets out blanket prohibitions against government regulation of natural resource trade. No Government is permitted to regulate or prohibit the flow of natural resources including water. Specifically, Article 309 of NAFTA reads: Parties may not adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another party, or the exportation of any good destined for another country. There is no clause in NAFTA that exempts water exports from these provisions. Water is subject to the same requirements of goods as other goods described in Article 309. Water is listed as item 22.01 in the NAFTA tariff heading; it states in part: Including natural waters not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavored, ice, and snow. This could mean Great Lakes water. In addition, the national treatment provisions of NAFTA prohibit governments from according foreign investors any less favorable treatment than is provided domestic corporations. This provision could permit foreign corporations to demand the same access to water resources that domestic consumers have. Several other features of NAFTA could directly influence existing protection against water diversion. Article 302 of NAFTA requires that parties not increase duties on items including resources, or adopt new ones, and Article 315 limits the right of parties to restrict trade through duties, taxes or other changes. All of these articles could be applicable to Great Lakes water. Again if our natural resources are not specifically excluded, they may as well be included. In the simplest terms, NAFTA articulates rules of trade that will restrict the ability of sovereign governments, and the people who elect them, to regulate the export or diversion of fresh water resources. NAFTA facilitates the trade of water by making it virtually impossible, under a toothless dispute resolution process, to refuse water export proposals. Is this diversion a legitimate possibility? It certainly is. It is already happening, albeit legally, on a small scale via the Chicago River diversion project and could easily happen on a larger scale. No grand pipeline or huge engineering project is required to accomplish this. Currently, the Chicago Diversion project diverts 3,200 cubic feet per second to the Midwestern plains but the Army Corps of Engineers has calculated that the Chicago diversion could accommodate 8,700 cubic feet per second if necessary. Over a limited amount of time, such an increase could lower water levels on Lake Michigan-Huron by \1/2\ foot. Should the Government of Mexico lay claim to Great Lakes water, increased diversion through Chicago would take Great Lakes water to the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers where it could meet up with engineering projects designed to take it over the border. Lowered water levels can cause significant problems with drinking water intakes. Lowered water levels could affect hydro-electric power production. Lowered water levels could dramatically affect navigation in the Great Lakes and eventually Hudson Bay. Lowered water levels can damage the valuable coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes basin. Mexico could increase its demand for fresh water. One in four Mexicans lack access to potable water and 55% of available water is being used for urban, industrial, and agricultural activities. As we see by this proposed bailout, Mexico is not afraid to come to the United States for help when their own policies begin to destroy the fabric of the country. Mexico is ripe to become a net importer of Great Lakes water. Two proposals were born out of the 1960's to accomplish just such a goal: the North American Water and Power Alliance, and the Great Replenishment and Northern Development Canal (the Grand Canal). In fact, the National Geographic magazine, November 1993, cites the real possibility of water diversion. In putting protection against diversion in the loan guarantee legislation, we are not asking Mexico to do anything that United States State governments haven't already done. Since 1980's, Midwestern leaders have (1) signed a regional Great Lakes Charter--an agreement among Governors of 8 Great Lakes States and Canadian regional premiers to limit diversion, (2) enacted the United States Water Resources Act of 1986 which gives Governors of 8 Great Lakes States a veto over any proposed diversion of Great Lakes water, (3) they rejected a significant proposed increase in the existing Chicago diversion of Great Lakes water in 1988 when the Governor of Illinois proposed increased diversion, etc. Furthermore, the citizens of the Great Lakes region have supported the concept that Great Lakes water must remain in the Great Lakes 80% of the population opposes diversions of water. Great Lakes is one of our region's, and indeed our country's, greatest resources. Congress should not continue this pattern of giving and giving without a hint of reciprocity from a Mexican Government that continues to artificially depress wages, that allows its banks to stack debt on borrowers, and that considers our extradition treaty a joke. This bailout, like NAFTA, is an opportunity to force change, but we must make the most of this opportunity. I call on my colleagues to demand change in Mexico. This bailout needs to be tied, inextricably to this change. I want to see some good faith moves on the part of the Mexican Government, or I intend to bail out on the bailout.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, last night in the President's State of the Union Message he laid out his challenges for this Congress and for the American people to fulfill in the next year. The President asked that these challenges be met in an open, honest bipartisan debate on all of the issues like the balanced budget amendment. As the President mentioned in his remarks, we Democrats support a balanced budget amendment, with a full and honest debate, not just between majority and minority Members but with the American people. The American people want to know, as we begin this debate, how are we to balance this budget by the year 2002. Today we will have an opportunity as we begin this debate to vote for a truth-in-budgeting amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. I urge all of my colleagues to support the truth-in-budgeting amendment which will tell us how we get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. How else can we assure the American people they will have a opportunity to participate in this debate, to know whether or not there will be cuts in Medicare, to know whether or not there will be cuts in Social Security? The only way to guarantee it is truth in budgeting. Support the Conyers amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, free speech, free debate, the free flow and exchange of ideas, has once again been denied the American people by the majority party. Last night our Democratic leader asked to debate the majority leader. As is customary, 1 hour was set aside for debate. The new majority leader only granted our leader 3 minutes to debate, 3 minutes to debate. Why will the majority not engage in debate on this floor? Why can we not debate the Democratic alternative to a balanced budget amendment? Why can we not debate the Democratic line-item veto, which was passed twice in the last session? Why will the majority not let America debate the Contract with America? If there is no free speech, if there is no free debate, if there is no free exchange of ideas on this floor, then I must wonder where in this great Nation will the majority leader allow any free speech?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns regarding H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. While I am generally supportive of the need to ease the burden on State and local governments, I do not believe we should rush through legislation that effects our health, safety, and environmental standards without closer examination. The Great Lakes region, for example, is a fragile ecosystem which depends on the cooperation of its surrounding States. Dumping of sewage or other toxins by one State or municipality significantly impacts the entire Great Lakes region. Pollution does not respect State, geographic or political boundaries. Who then pays for--let's say--airborne pollutants generated in one State, which land in and produce acid rain in neighboring States? Northern Michigan is a pristine region whose inland lakes are dying from airborne pollutants originating in steel mills in cities such as Gary, IN, and Chicago, IL. Without any Federal safeguards or minimal national standards, which State will take the lead in stopping this air pollution that creates acid rain. And more importantly, which State would pay, Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois? These are questions that must be answered, not ignored in the haste, to create unfunded mandates legislation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I came here today to speak of unfunded mandates, but I must point out to the American people that there was no legislation ready to come to the House floor this week or today or tomorrow. It will not be until Friday. But now I must speak of a new gag rule which is being implemented in this House. The gag rule in this House, and this Chamber, is that the media can truthfully report to the American people, but a duly elected Member of this body, of this Congress, cannot report from this floor to his or her constituency the latest press reports on the Speaker's book deal. So let me remind any Speaker in this chair that the Members of this side of the aisle will not be gagged, we will not be silenced, we will not be intimidated, we will continue to question all actions of anyone who does not conform to the high standards expected by the American people and of this institution. Free speech will not be squelched to protect anyone.