Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. If there is going to be a WRDA bill, that is the first if. Secondly, if we will be given an opportunity to offer the amendment. We have a bill; it is 2595. As the gentleman knows, the International Joint Commission on February 22 put forth their recommendations on what should be done to not only stop vast transfers of water out of the Great Lakes region but also what should be in the meantime to make sure the States provide the necessary data and information so we can make intelligent decisions concerning our water resources. Not just for transfer or sale but also for the ecology of it, for the environment, and for the conservation. So if we would have a WRDA bill, and if we were to be given the opportunity to appear before the committee to present H.R. 2595, my bill on the Great Lakes, or a modified version taking in the International Joint Commission's recommendations, I would be willing to entertain that. I see we probably have a number of more speakers, so I would like to hear the other speakers before I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. The few times I have done bills on Great Lakes to preserve and protect the Great Lakes, they have been bipartisan bills. I would like to remain in that bipartisan atmosphere. At times, it gets a little difficult, when we have people outside the Great Lakes coming into our region and our districts and making wild statements about our lack of protection of the Great Lakes. So we are always vigilant to look for opportunities to protect our Great Lakes and our Great Lakes resources. As long as I am a Member of Congress, I will continue to work day in and day out to protect the Great Lakes. Based upon the assurances from the chairman and the ranking member, however, I will look forward to working with both the chairman and the ranking member to work to protect the Great Lakes in the WRDA bill, WRDA 2000.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

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

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue. I was in my office doing some work and I heard the gentlewoman's statements, and statements the gentlewoman has received from around Michigan. She has been a leader around the Nation to try to get prices lower for all our constituents in Michigan. Some have been from Marquette Michigan, the area I represent. I certainly share the gentlewoman's sentiments. In September of 1998, we had the Committee on Government Reform also do a study in my district, which as the gentlewoman said is the Upper Peninsula, Northern and lower Michigan. We found that the most favored customers and the big HMOs, those who have insurance coverage, pay about half of what an uninsured senior would have to pay for prescription drug coverage. Not only is there inherent discrimination here, where we make those who can least afford it pay the most because they do not have the purchasing power behind them of a big HMO or a big insurance company. What we have found also in further follow-up studies, and I know the gentlewoman has mentioned it tonight, in Mexico, Canada, the same drugs, the same companies, the same number of pills in that vial, and they pay 50 to 60 percent less. Our seniors go to Canada up in our neck of the woods, or if they are in the South, they go to Mexico and get it for half the price. I saw an article recently in Congress Daily where they said, Well, those countries do not allow us to put our true cost out there, and therefore, those countries have price controls over their prescription drugs. But in the United States, since we do not make any kind of controls or try to rein in these pharmaceutical companies, they charge basically whatever they want. When we look at these studies, take the study from my district in 1998, they show the return on that investment on that prescription drug for those pharmaceutical companies, a 26.7 percent profit. When inflation is 3 percent, their profit margin for that year, 1997, the most recent statistics we had, was 26.7 percent. For total profit after all the advertising, after all the research, it was $28 billion. I do not mind them making a profit, but I do not think in this time of low inflation we should have 26.7 percent profit or $28 billion in profits and not help out those seniors who really need the help. Take a look at it. I have a letter here from a lady from my district. I am going to be doing town halls for the next two weeks, and the gentlewoman will be also, in Michigan. We are going to hear a lot more about this. She writes, ``Dear sir, my only income is social security, a check of $685. I live in a L'Anse housing apartment. I pay $147 a month. I had to sell my car. I really do need the help.'' She sends me her prescription drugs. There is $54.39, $50.51, $15.53, $12.74. These are monthly. Add that up. Here is another one from another lady from L'Anse. She says, ``Dear sir, I am enclosing receipts for medicine I had to take for pneumonia. My husband died December 11, 1998, and I have $634 to live on for the month. I pay $137.64 for Blue Cross insurance. I am 73\1/2\ years old and I still work, so I can continue with Blue Cross-Blue Shield and prescriptions. But even with the allowance, I still have to pay about $20 for each prescription I take, and I do it for a month. So even though I have Blue Cross-Blue Shield, I still have to pay another $80 in co-pay. I ask you, I don't have enough to go around. I sure hope something can be done on the price of prescription medicine.'' Again, she made me copies from Primo Pharmacy of all of her parmaceuticals. Here is another individual from Cheboygan, Michigan. ``In response to your AARP article concerning drug prices for seniors, I am 88 years old, a widow, living on a social security benefit of $814 a month. I am enclosing receipts for my drugs for just 1 month, every month. Some months it is more. The total is $446.36 a month. Seniors really need help with drug prices.'' She signs her letter. The issue here is, seniors do need help with drug prices, with the costs of their drugs. There are three bills: the Allen bill from the gentleman from Maine, which takes the purchasing power of the Federal government to try to drive down the prices of prescription drugs for seniors who do not have any type of insurance coverage; the Stark bill, which actually says, make it part of Medicare, have universal service. There is the President's bill, which does a little bit of both. I know the Republican party will be bringing forth a bill, and I look forward to it, but I hope they understand one thing. We have to stop the price discriminatory practices by the pharmaceutical companies and make it universal coverage. In this country, there is no reason why not. In my district, about 40 percent of seniors do not have any prescription drug coverage. Why should they pay twice, twice as much as someone who happens to have a prescription drug coverage or is part of a large HMO? As the gentlewoman knows, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan there are no HMOs. In lower Michigan there is now one left. A very small part of my district can take advantage of an HMO to get prescription drug coverage. Again, we do not mind them making a buck, but when their return is 26.7 percent, that is better than the market right now. Even after paying all the research, all the advertising, and whenever we open up the magazine it is full of advertising for this drug and that drug, they are still making $28 billion a year. We do not mind a profit, but do not gouge our uninsured seniors to make a profit. The Democrat party would like to see universal coverage, and stop the predatory price discriminatory practices of the pharmaceutical companies. I must say, we have to thank the pharmacists throughout the State who have brought this to our attention and have helped us in these studies to show us what they have to pay. It is not their fault. The local pharmacist is doing the best they can. They get the price. If the customer is with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, they pay one price, with Aetna they pay a different price, with the Federal system they pay a different price. That is passed on from the pharmaceutical companies. The markup is very, very small, 1 or 2, 3 percent at most. These are the prices being set by the pharmaceutical companies. I think in this day and age there is no reason why we cannot have prescription drug coverage for our seniors, especially those who, like these widows that I have brought these letters from, they have written to me, they did not have insurance policies. They did not have insurance plans. Their husbands are deceased. They live on social security. That is it. No one would devise a Medicare plan nowadays without prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are wonderful. They save lives. We should have it. We should have it for everyone. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I look forward to working with her over the Easter break. I am sure we will be doing more town hall meetings. I am sure we will see more and more discussion about prescription drug coverage. But I thank the gentlewoman for having this special order tonight. It is an issue very near to the seniors in my district and throughout this country. We reach out to our Republican friends. Together we can solve this problem. I hope that we will be joined by our friends across the aisle to put forth a program to just use the purchasing power of the Federal government under the Federal supply service, pass that on to those uninsured seniors, and we can cut the price in half for those seniors. That is not asking too much. I think we could do that. I hope they will join us with that.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly tonight about a married couple that have had an incredibly wonderful and positive impact on my life. I use the occasion of the golden wedding anniversary of Connie and Delbert Lorenson on February 11 to reflect on the important values I learned from them as a young man. I learned much as a friend of the family, a frequent visitor and guest at their home in Gladstone, Michigan, and as a Boy Scout under Delbert's leadership. In 1950, so the Escanaba Daily Press reminds us, Delbert Lorenson married the former Connie Jacks of Detroit at the Trinity Lutheran Church in Stonington. 1950 was certainly a different world, as most of us know, and the tiny town in Michigan's Upper Peninsula where they were married was in some ways even more remote from today. Nowadays, it seems the expression ``family values'' often applies to a concept in political campaigns; in 1950 in this most rural region of the Midwest it was--and it remains--a foundation of our way of life. Not that we thought ourselves rural or remote. Television was just about to be beamed north from Green Bay, and the Interstate Highway System was about to be born. Cars were about to become sleek and common. The world was becoming much smaller in that post World War II world for this veteran and his new bride. In reality, however, our world would remain slower and quieter for another decade. I spent a lot of time with the Lorensons' son, Rick. Although he was one year older, we participated together in high school sports, especially in football and track and field. Perhaps most important to my ties with this family, we were also Scouts together. Delbert was my Scoutmaster, helping Rick and me achieve the goal of becoming Eagle Scouts. So it's natural, I suppose, that when I have recalled my time with the Lorensons, the memory of working for merit badges and attending troop meetings is bound together with the memory of dinners at the Lorenson home and camping trips together. But today, as I think of Connie and Delbert's 50 years together, the values learned in Scouting are foremost in my mind. These values aren't mere categories of accomplishment checked off as one moves up the ranks of Scouting. Scouts are taught life skills--discipline, responsibility, perseverance, teamwork, respect for others, a sense of community, sacrifice--and we were taught these skills in the context of love, concern and a pervasive spirituality. What better skills can a couple possess to allow them to remain lovingly together for 50 years! What better skills can they teach to the next generation that might justifiably wear the label ``family values!'' Rick and I have gone our separate paths, but our values were clearly formed in the same crucible. I have entered public service as a Member of Congress, and Rick has become a minister. Two other children, Tom and Pam, recently joined Rick in hosting a dinner and dance to celebrate their parents' 50 years together. I treasure the wisdom I learned from the Lorensons. I wish them many, many more years of love, health and joy.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join other northern Michigan residents in celebrating the centennial of the Calumet Theatre, in Calumet, Michigan, on the beautiful Keweenaw Peninsula. Despite its remoteness, this remarkable theater once provided a stage for some of the greatest actors and actresses who traveled the country shortly after the turn of the century. Like many institutions of its kind, the theater fell on hard times but was rediscovered by farsighted local residents. Now it is the bright jewel of a national project. The Calumet Theatre, which occupies a place on the National Register of Historic Places, sits in the heart of downtown Calumet, which is also listed on the National Register. Both in turn are major features and attractions in one of the nation's newest national parks, Keweenaw National Historic Park. The performers who appeared for local audiences included such luminaries as Lillian Russell, John Philip Sousa, Sarah Bernhardt, Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Lon Chaney Sr., Jason Robards Sr., William S. Hart, and Wallace and Noah Beery. Also appearing was Madame Helen Modjeska, whose spirit is being resurrected in a new book by author Susan Sontag, but whose actual ghost is said to occasionally walk the boards of the stage, just as she did in real life in 1900, 1902 and 1905. As the story is told--even as far away as Madame Modjeska's home country of Poland--an actress with a New York theatrical troupe was playing the role of Kate in Taming of the Shrew in 1958, when she suddenly went blank on her monologue. She was saved by the pale figure of Madam Modjeska, who fed her the lines from the balcony. Is there really a ghost, Mr. Speaker? Ask former reporter Rick Rudden, now editor of the Escanaba Daily Press, who spent a ghost hunting night in a theater filled with strong raps, knocks and other inexplicable sounds. But it is my own district, Mr. Speaker, which threatened for many years to become a ghost of its own former glory in the heyday of copper mining. The copper boom is a fixture of the distant past, but the echoes of a dying industry can still be heard. As recently as 1995 the nearby White Pine Mine closed, taking with it 1,200 good-paying jobs. This is the context in which we celebrate the centennial of the Calumet Theatre. The community--the region--looks back a hundred years to a grand past, but it need only look at yesterday to see a time of economic struggle and uncertainty. Yet, in the midst of these very lean years, residents have worked to save such assets as the theater, not only as showpieces for visitors but as living and working community centers for the performing arts. As the theater's Web site proudly proclaims, restoration and performances at the Calumet Theatre are organized by the Calumet Theatre Company, a member-supported volunteer based organization. The theater now serves as a venue for 60-80 events annually, including symphony performances, folk music, jazz, opera, plays, dance, dinner movies, community events, as well as public meetings and guided tours. With this passion for preserving and continuing such cultural traditions, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly no wonder that the early home of the current chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, William Ivey, is only minutes from the Calumet Theatre. I salute the people of Calumet for their foresight and hard work in restoring this community asset and ensuring it is included in our nation's inventory of architectural treasures. I am pleased the theater has been designated as a ``Save America's Treasures`` site by the Millennium Council at the White House. I thank Bill Ivey for his tireless efforts towards this goal, and I commend the Calumet Theatre Company for undertaking the day-to-day task of preserving this facility.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained at a bipartisan meeting on youth violence and missed rollcall vote on House Resolution 433 regarding the consideration of H.R. 1695. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Captain Gary McGhee, who will be retiring in May, after a long and distinguished career with the Michigan State Police. Needless to say, as a former state trooper myself, I am proud of Michigan law enforcement, and Captain McGhee's service has given us additional reason to be proud. It is for this reason that on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the citizens of the State of Michigan, I commend Captain McGhee on his service, and wish him the best of luck and good health in his retirement. Captain McGhee achieved a high level of success throughout his years with the State Police, culminating with his current position as Eighth District Commander, where he is in charge of thirteen State Police Posts and three two-officer concept offices, total delivery of State Police services to fifteen counties of the U.P. Captain McGhee has always looked out for the citizens of Michigan by his service as a trooper, his guidance of his fellow officers, and his leadership and initiative. He began his service with his enlistment in recruit school in May of 1966, and his start as a trooper in Bridgeport and Lansing. Of course, not one to sit on the sidelines, a year later he received a Lifesaving Award when he jumped off the Zilwaukee Bridge to aid another officer, risking his own life to save that of another. Captain McGhee has published both nationally and internationally, and been instrumental in bringing law enforcement communities to work together on timely issues. His innovative traffic safety initiative, ``Let's Buckle (the) U.P.'', drew together all law enforcement agencies for the first time in a united effort to promote safety on Michigan's streets. Most recently, in 1998 and 1999 he coordinated law enforcement between Michigan and Wisconsin by putting together the Wisconsin/ Michigan Law Enforcement Summit where officials and government leaders from both states met to discuss issues common across the border. Captain McGhee has done so much, so well, for so long, that I can only recall one occasion that his judgment may be called into question: letting me graduate from recruit school while he was Recruit School Commander! In all seriousness, I thank him for his help and advice that he gave me and other recruits that went on to serve in his tradition. As former Post-Commander in Reed City, Assistant District Commander in the Eight and Seventh Districts, and as the current Eighth District Commander, Captain McGhee has ensured that the men and women under his watch perform to their highest possible levels, to the best advantage of the citizens of the U.P. and Michigan. Captain McGhee, you will be missed, but your accomplishments and guidance have left their mark, making law enforcement in the U.P. and Michigan something we can all be proud of! I also congratulate Suzanne McGhee on her retirement, and wish the best to the entire McGhee family.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note for our House colleagues the loss of a fine community leader and dedicated public servant, Fred Muller of Acme, Mich., who died at his home on Dec. 21, 1999. At the time of his death, Fred was chief of the Grand Traverse Rural Fire Department. He was also an arson investigator whose probes and seminars took him all over the nation, and he was an instructor at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Md. Most important to me, Fred Muller was my friend. I am challenged, Mr. Speaker, to sum up this man's life in a few brief remarks. My anecdotes are only small windows on the career of a man who so loved firefighting from his youth that at age 13 he formed a junior volunteer fire brigade in his hometown of Brighton, Michigan. We can only glimpse the strength of his dedication to his community in such acts as coming out of retirement in 1985 after 24 years with General Motors to assume the post of rural fire chief in one of the most heavily populated counties in my district. Our view of Fred Muller comes into better focus when we learn that he served eight years as a city council member and two years as mayor pro tempore of Brighton, and held various leadership positions, including president, of such professional organizations as the Northern Michigan Fire Chiefs, Michigan Fire Chiefs and International Association of Fire Chiefs. Fred was a leader, and as his deputy chief Bill Sedlacek was quick to note in a news story on Fred's death, he led his volunteer force to a position of being rated among the top five in the nation. In his public role, Fred's greatest test was a fire that broke out in late 1995 at a tire retreading facility in the small Michigan community of Grawn. When the black clouds began climbing from the site and soot began turning snow around the site black, Fred ordered homes evacuated and a local school closed. But the fire, which burrowed deep into a field of hundreds of thousands of tires, sometimes piled 50 feet high, soon signaled it would not be easily dealt with. There was no model for this conflagration. Temperatures at the core of the fire built up to almost 2,500 degrees. The fire burned under the surface, creating cavities that constantly threatened to swallow firefighting equipment. Conventional hoses merely built a shell of ice around the fire, which burned uninterrupted. The fire became a siege, drawing manpower from around the state and bringing in technical experts from various state and federal agencies. Almost 125 firefighters were at work on New Year's Eve. Throughout the fire, Fred continued to monitor the hours that men worked, aware that fatigue and complacency were the greatest threats to the well-being of the army of firefighters. Whenever he gave community updates, Fred drew applause from audiences who knew he was dedicated to finding a way to defeat this fire through techniques that would serve as a guide for any future fire of this kind. I had known Fred through his efforts to win funding for fire training, but now I had an opportunity to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him in this great fight. I was able to assist by obtaining for Fred a pair of Air National Guard water cannons from a nearby base. With these cannons, his crews were able to blast apart the hot core of the fire, eventually reducing the blaze to smaller, cooler fires that could be doused by conventional means. Mr. Speaker, we all owe a debt to this dedicated citizen, one of those men who care about people, give of themselves, and seem to live a life in preparation from some great moment when they can marshal and utilize all the skills they have acquired. Not only my northern Michigan communities but the entire nation sustained a great loss with Fred Muller's untimely death. He will be missed.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I and many, many residents of northern Michigan continue to mourn the passing of the Rev. Edwin Frederick, our beloved Father Fred, who affected so many lives by the simple act of tending and caring for those in need. It may be misleading, Mr. Speaker, to describe Father Fred's work as simple. The simple act of sharing is to offer a hungry man half one's loaf of bread. The simple act of caring is to put one's own coat over the shoulders of a child shivering with a cold. Father Fred went much further than that. The foundation he created has provided food, clothing and other basic necessities to literally thousands of families. The Father Fred Foundation now distributes more than a million dollars in aid each year to individuals and families in the Traverse City area. It is, at its heart, the story of the loaves and fishes, a miracle being worked by our Savior through this simple man of the cloth who was willing to ride on the back of Harley Davidson motorcycles and oversee garage sales to build this sustaining fund. I was fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have been one of Father Fred's instruments in his performance of good works. I looked forward each year to assisting him in serving Thanksgiving dinner to those in need. In this most basic act of charity, helping to provide sustenance to another human, I learned that most basic of Christian lessons, learning to love a stranger. My heart was heavy this year at Thanksgiving, because as I left I knew I would never again see Father Fred alive. His smile was as wide as ever, but the cancer that was killing him had left this once powerful man very frail. Father Fred died in January at the age of 74. We in Congress have an opportunity to meet many stately, strong, wise, and wonderful people. But in those quiet moments when I can reflect on the individuals who have really had an impact on my view of the world and my feelings for my fellow man, it is Father Fred who marches at the forefront of that long procession of men and women whose lives have at one time or another intersected with mine. He will continue to live among us in the foundation he created, and in the special place in our hearts and memories that he created.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill bars workers who are eligible for Worker's Compensation from suing a manufacturer or seller of equipment, such as printing presses and machine tools, if more than 18 years has elapsed since the product was manufactured. The Republican leadership is bringing forth this bill to the floor under the guise of reasonably limiting litigation and helping manufacturers. Sure, it protects manufacturers. It protects negligent manufacturers. It protects reckless manufacturers. It protects these negligent and reckless manufacturers at the expense of our Nation's workers and employers. This bill will limit the employees to Worker's Compensation. That is two-thirds of their pay at best, no matter how severe the injuries are. Worker's Compensation does not make a person whole. It provides medical costs and very limited disability payments to cover some period, not their whole life, just some period of lost wages, no matter how severe the injury; no matter if someone loses a limb or the ability to work again. H.R. 2005 promotes inequality and injustice to one of our country's most important groups, the workers who toil in the manufacturing places of our factories every day, who frequently work with dangerous machinery. Owners of businesses and owners of management are generally excluded from Worker's Compensation plans. They still will be able to sue and recover for all their losses. But the workers, the very people who are the most at risk, will be limited to the few remedies offered by Worker's Compensation. I cannot support this biased proposal against America's workers. Why do my Republican colleagues think that the manufacturers need this protection? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that injuries for the year 1998 dropped to their lowest level since the 1970's. There is no flood of injuries or litigation requiring reform. The judicial process works. Frivolous claims get weeded out, and meritorious claims go forward. That is how our legal system works. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of passage of H.R. 2130, the Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Act. In October, this House overwhelmingly passed this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do so again today. As many of my colleagues know, I have long been concerned with the problem of drug abuse and date rape. In addition to other efforts, I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2130, the legislation we are considering here today. H.R. 2130, as amended, is the product of a compromise worked out by numerous parties in the Commerce Committee, Judiciary Committee and the Senate to address the concerns and needs of both law enforcement and patients. I am sure that all the members of this body have heard or read about the terrible incidents surrounding GHB. GHB has been widely used by nefarious individuals to help commit date rapes. It has been widely abused by teenagers seeking an easily available illicit substance. GHB is one of the first drugs in which the recipe for manufacture at home was widely available over the Internet. People were literally cooking up the drug in their house by obtaining the ingredients and instructions over the Internet. H.R. 2130 addressed this issue by requiring tracking and reporting of possible misuse of GBL and other precursor chemicals. By requiring the Drug Enforcement Agency to schedule GHB, we will be giving the DEA strong controls over the drug and allowing them to combat the rampant abuse of this drug which we are currently seeing. Finally, the bill requires the Department of Justice to develop a forensic test to aid law enforcement officials in determining when GHB or a GHB-related compound is involved in a criminal activity. This will be helpful to law enforcement officials who currently have no way of determining GHB's involvement in a crime or situation without laboratory testing. However, this bill recognizes that well-designed legislative efforts should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. By this, I mean that the abusive use of GHB we have been focusing on should not prevent possible legitimate or beneficial uses of the drug. For example, GHB has shown considerable promise for the treatment of narcolepsy. Specifically, this drug could benefit the approximately 30,000 people who suffer with a form of cataplexy, or the sudden loss of muscle control. Good public policy recognizes these patients and the important research which is being done attempting to address their serious medical concerns. The bill we are considering today, as passed by the Senate, is different from the legislation we passed in October in a significant respect. Since the Senate-passed version does not specifically schedule GHB on the list of controlled substances, but rather instructs the DEA about how the scheduling should occur. I want to make clear that Congress clearly intends that once GHB is approved by the FDA, the DEA should place the drug into Schedule III. We intend that this drug product be treated in every respect as a Schedule III controlled substance. Only in this way can we ensure that patients who need this drug will have access to it. Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has gone into reaching this bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson- Lee, for working with me so diligently on this issue. I want to thank the Chairman of the Commerce Committee Mr. Bliley, as well as Mr. Upton and Mr. Bilirakis who were crucial in moving this bill through the Commerce Committee. Finally I would like to thank Mr. Dingell, as well as Mr. Brown and Mr. Klink for working with us on our side to move this bill. I urge the House to pass this bill so we can prevent more deaths from the misuse of this dangerous substance.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, here we are in mid-November and quite frankly, the Republican-led Congress has done very little. The appropriation bills languish and the needs of the American people are not being met. Now we seem to be arguing over four-tenths of 1 percent of a cut. Instead, the American people asked for things that cost very little and would improve their lives, like a Patients' Bill of Rights so patients and doctors can make their medical decisions; like an increase in minimum wage so everyone can enjoy the strong economy; like 100,000 more teachers so that we can have smaller classes. And, Mr. Speaker, why can we not provide prescription drug coverage for all of our seniors. Mr. Speaker, let us work for the American people. Unfortunately, under the Republican-led Congress, it is always the same old song. Tax breaks for the rich and a tax on government. America wants a Congress that works for them like Democrats are fighting for, for 100,000 teachers, 50,000 new police officers, a real Patients' Bill of Rights, protecting our environment and providing prescription drug coverage for all seniors, all paid for, all paid for without busting the budget or raiding Social Security.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak on behalf of this resolution. I trace my own ancestry to an area of what is now the Slovak Republic, and I watch with interest and concern developments in this area of Europe. There are dangers and threats to these new democracies, which were created from the totalitarian governments of the former Soviet satellite nations. These threats stem from economic disparities, disappointment in the pace of growth, old ethnic animosities, and untested political structures. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Congress of the United States, the world's foremost democracy, commend the government of the Slovak Republic for its efforts to address the issue of minority rights and improve the economic well-being of all its citizens. I would also like to commend the former government of Vladimir Meciar for its role in guiding the Slovak Republic through its early days of democracy. I know that politics often sharpens the public dialogues and that the many voices of democracy often contain words of rancor and ill-will. However, as outside observers, we can look with favor--and favor with our praise--peaceful transitions of power and the subservience of the machinery of government to the will of the people. I encourage all my colleagues to support this resolution with the same hope that I feel for the future of the Slovak Republic, of Eastern Europe, and of young democracies everywhere. I look forward to that best measure of success, the full integration of the Slovak Republic into the community of Europe.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this Republican-led Congress is a Congress of catchy slogans and gimmicks in trying to pass the appropriation bills, gimmicks like trying to create a 13th month for budget purposes, gimmicks like trying to declare everything an emergency, like the 2000 census, even though it has been in the Constitution for over 200 years. Now their latest gimmick is a button to tell themselves to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Instead of gimmicks in raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the emergency spending, American people ask for things that cost very little and would improve their lives, like a patients' bill of rights so they and their doctors can make their medical decisions and not the HMO; like an increase in the minimum wage so everyone can enjoy our strong economy; like 100,000 more teachers so we can have smaller class sizes; and prescription drug coverage for seniors. Mr. Speaker, let us work for the American people. Unfortunately, under the Republican-led Congress, it is always the same old story. Tax breaks for the rich and a tax on Government. America wants a Congress that works for them, like Democrats are fighting for.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate him for putting together this special order now. I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I really appreciate the gentlemen. They are new Members, and they bring a lot of enthusiasm to the job, and a good, practical approach to government. We really need that in this body at times. I think it is very unfair how the Republican majority are running ads against the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) on spending social security, yet he is the person who came up with the social security lockbox idea so that we cannot spend social security; the gentleman is absolutely right, like the cookie jar thing where they point at you while they are sticking their hand in the cookie jar, taking $17 billion from the social security surplus to try to pay for this faltering budget that they have put forward. All the colleagues who join us here were here in November, and quite frankly, the Republican-led Congress has done very little. They have passed 13 appropriation bills, knowing five of them are going to be vetoed. So the appropriation bills languish, and the needs of the American people. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is right, it is not a Democratic agenda, but the needs of the American people are not being met, are not being met at all. The Republicans have spent a year trying to convince the American people that they need this $792 billion tax cut, which would benefit the wealthiest Americans. But America saw through that. They said, put the money to pay the debt and strengthen social security. Do not give this money in a tax break. Do not raid our social security. They rejected it. Did they understand that? No. Look at this, Congress Daily, Wednesday, November 3: ``Hastert Pledges New Tax Cut Push.'' It is here. He is going to push another tax cut. How is he going to pay for it? We do not have enough money to pay for the current appropriation bills. There is $17 billion taken out of social security to pay for the current budget, and we are not even done with it. While they are spending that, now they want another new tax cut push. This is Congress Daily, nothing we made up. This is what we get every day. Sure enough, they are going to push another big tax break to benefit the wealthy. How are we going to pay for it? Back to raiding social security? Why do they not accept the gentleman's proposal and do a lockbox? Why do they not take those false ads off the air and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for putting on the lockbox, for saving the social security surplus so the Republicans cannot use it for tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, as we take a look at it, they have had the wrong priorities. They have tried to use gimmicks to pass the budget. I remember about 6 months ago, as we got toward the October 1 deadline, they came up with this great idea, let us call it the 13th month, the 13th month. We all know there are 12 months in the calendar, but they want to create a 13th month. That way they can stay within the budget caps by creating this fictitious 13th month. Sometime, somewhere, we have to pay for that 13th month. So I am proud of Democrats standing up and saying, we are not going to accept that gimmick. Take away the 13th month. Then they said, let us declare everything an emergency, everything we do not have money for. If we declare an emergency, we do not have to stay within the budget caps. Let us declare an emergency things like the Census. We have to count the American people. It is in our Constitution for over 200 years. Every 10 years we count the American people. It is 2000, the 2000 budget, and we have to count the American people. Well, we will declare that an emergency. That way we can spend money, spend the social security trust fund and not have to declare it as part of our budget. My colleagues are right, this GOP Congress is really the do-wrong Congress, not do-nothing. What they do, they do it wrong. It is a do- wrong Congress, instead of listening to the American people and working on the programs that would cost very little and really would improve the lives of the American people, like a real Patients' Bill of Rights, so Americans and their doctors would make medical decisions, and not the insurance companies and HMOs; like increasing the minimum wage, since we have this robust economy. Why cannot those who are struggling to get by enjoy the strong national economy by increasing the minimum wage? Or how about 100,000 more teachers, 100,000 more teachers, and we can have smaller class sizes, so students who are most at risk can get a helping hand to learn, so we can bring some discipline back into the classroom? Why not? Why not, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, why should we not enforce all the gun laws that are on the books, and do background checks on every commercial sale of a gun, even those at gun shows? Let us treat everyone the same. No more excuses, no more exceptions. We should be working for the American people. Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congress has the same old song: more tax breaks here for the wealthy and more tax on government. What America wants us to do, they want a Congress that will work for them, like the plans that the Democrats are fighting for: 100,000 teachers that we need for smaller classrooms; 50,000 more police officers in the Cops II program that we have all fought for, and we see it works across this great Nation; a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to protect our environment, and we have to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. That is not asking too much. We can pay for it, and it is paid for without busting the budget or raiding social security. We have talked about HMO reform and a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We passed it here by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 275 to 151. So what do we do today? Appoint conferees. Who appoints conferees? The Speaker. Who are the Republican members of the conferees that were voted on today? Not the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who is the sponsor of the bill; not the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who knows something about medical stuff; or the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). Why? Because they all voted for a Patients' Bill of Rights. They are doctors. Who did they appoint? They put on people, some of these 151, the people who voted against the bill. Tell me, are we going to get a real Patients' Bill of Rights when the conferees who work out the difference all voted against the bill? We do not have one Republican member who voted for it on that conferee; another gimmick, another gimmick. These guys vote for gimmicks instead of reality and practical government, and try to move the effort forward. Look, we ran the bill and they lost. Accept it. What happens when we have a conference? The major sponsors of the legislation are the conferees, not those who are going to vote for special interests; in this case, the insurance companies. I cannot believe they do this stuff. When we talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the medical needs of the American people, I want to share one story. I just got a call in today. I am not quite sure how I can help the individual. In my hometown in Menominee, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, this gentleman owns a small business, been going great guns, been expanding and doing well, an employer. He has full-time benefits for his employees and health insurance for his employees and their families. He was telling me he has 90 employees. It used to cost him $17,000 to $19,000 to pay for health insurance. Unfortunately, one of his employees, their wife had open heart surgery. So they had to renew their insurance. The insurance company says, not going to cover you anymore. You have a claim against us. No, we did not have a claim. Yes, you did. One of your employees, their spouse had open heart surgery. We will insure you but it will now cost you $49,000 a month. One claim, 90 employees. It used to be $17,000 to $19,000 a month. Because of this one claim, open heart surgery, it is now $49,000. That is more than triple the premium went up because of this. So in our Patients' Bill of Rights, what we say, let us enforce these rights, and there is a carryover provision. So if your coverage gets dropped by the insurance companies, you can stay with that doctor and continue care. What happens to the lady who just has open heart surgery and the company can no longer afford the extortion by the insurance companies and has to drop the insurance? How does she get her follow-up care? How does she do it without bankrupting that family? So I think the Democratic Party or the American people have the right agenda. They want us to do things that will keep us within the budget. They want us to do things that affect their everyday life. I do not know about my colleagues but after the debacle of the Republicans before with the $792 billion tax break, no one in my district was pounding on my door saying give me the tax break. Every time they heard about it, they pounded on my door and said do not give the tax break. Put money in Social Security. Put money in Medicare. Give us some prescription drug coverage, and if there is $3 trillion, is it not time we pay down that debt? The American people know what they want. They know what they need. And they said, you know, geez, you guys had a good start with 100,000 teachers last year. We have about 30,000. Can you get the other 70,000 in there, because we do want the smaller class sizes, whether it is New York or upper Michigan or New Jersey, and they are not having students out in the hallways because classes are expanding. Right now, in this country we have more people in K through 12 education than ever before in our Nation's history, but we are not helping them out. We are not helping them out. Why not the 50,000 police officers? Why not? Crime is going down. Everything is going well. Now you stop, you throw in the towel and say we do not have to do anything else to fight crime; let us get rid of the cops? It just does not make any sense to me whatsoever. What we have seen is a Republican-led Congress, all kinds of gimmicks, an agenda that has been rejected by the American people. That is why I call it the do-wrong-thing Congress. We have done some things. It has all been wrong. The American public rejects it. The people who we have talked to reject it. They just need a little helping hand from government. So I am pleased that they have spoken up and we will continue to speak up for the American people through these special orders. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for allowing us some time to come down and join him here tonight, and my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), tell them to pull those ads and put the truth on TV. The gentleman is the one who did the lockbox for the Social Security trust fund, not raiding it, and of course the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) who does well with New York and the conditions there in trying to educate the children in a big metropolitan area where they have overcrowded classrooms, and even up in my northern district, northern Michigan district, we do not have the size of New York but we still have students being taught out in those temporary trailers. I think it has been 15 or 20 years now. The temporary trailers are still there falling apart. We certainly do need help with more teachers and a bond proposal to help school construction. I appreciate the opportunity. That is what I am hearing from my constituents. I wish we could work in a bipartisan manner like on the Patients' Bill of Rights and then do not give us a gimmick in appointing conferees who all voted against us and then say we are going to give a fair conference on Patients' Bill of Rights. It does not make sense to me.

Mr. STUPAK. Which reflects the wishes of the House, not their personal agenda or the agenda of special interests but the will of the House. Let the will of the House prevail in this conference report, in this conference committee. Also, if one takes a look at the rules of the House, they do not say it is mandated but they certainly suggest that the sponsoring people of the legislation, the bulk of them would be conferees, should be conferees. They do everything but say they must be the conferees. I think it just adds to the poison atmosphere we see around here, and again just another gimmick to defeat things that the American people are demanding. The conference report no one sees that, conference committee, so we can kill it right there and nothing ever happens. We do not have to worry about real reform. It is just ridiculous.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, here we are in November, and, quite frankly, this Republican Congress has done very little. The appropriations bills languish and the needs of the American people are not being met. The GOP has spent the year trying to convince the American people that they need a $792 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, but America saw through this tax giveaway which raided the Social Security Trust Fund and rejected it. Instead, the American people asked for things that cost very little and would improve their lives, like a patients' bill of rights so Americans and doctors can make their medical decisions and not the HMOs; like the increase in the minimum wage so all Americans can enjoy this strong economy; like 100,000 more teachers so we can reduce the class sizes; and why, Mr. Speaker, can we not enforce all the gun laws on the books and do background checks on every commercial sale of a gun, even those at gun shows? No more excuses, no more exceptions. Mr. Speaker, let us work for the American people. Unfortunately, under the Republican-led Congress, it is always the same old song: More tax breaks for the rich and more tax on government. America wants a Congress that works for them, like Democrats are fighting for.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, the bill before us today, H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act, is important to the people and communities of Northern Michigan. Much of my congressional district lies in the Ottawa, and Hiawatha, National Forests. Forest products are my district main industry, and they have a great financial, environmental, cultural, historical and recreational impact on my constituents. My constituents depend on strong, vibrant national forests. We have been good stewards of our land and its natural resource; the forests depend on us for nurturing and protection. This proper stewardship helps both the economy and the environment. Continued timber sales help in guaranteeing the future health of our national forests. Since 1991, more trees die and rot each year in national forests than is sold for timber. I doubt if anyone in this chamber would view this as a proper and efficient use of our resources. Since the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own lands, the several counties in my district with national forest lands depend on the 25-percent payments in order to provide essential services such as education, law enforcement, emergency fire and medical, search and rescue, solid waste management, road maintenance, and other health and human services. The forest industry is one of the top employers in my district. Overall, Michigan generates over $90 million in timber-based employment. My district has been suffering from high unemployment. The financial guarantee and funding stability provided by this legislation will help the economy of Northern Michigan. While I would like to see higher levels of funding in this bill for Region Nine of the Upper Midwest, I also accept the need to provide stable levels of funding for our communities and for our schools. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2389.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that the woman whose community service I wish to recognize here today, Ruth Hartwick of Boyne City, Michigan, understands as well as anyone I know the right and need for workers to organize into unions. It is Ruth's commitment to that cause that is earning her the Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award, and I rise to pay tribute to her today. Ruth has served on the organizing committee for UAW Local Union 1403, and she has put in more than 20 years of service to the United Auto Workers. Ruth was on the bargaining committee and later served as chairperson. She has held the position to president and steward. She has been active with the retirees and was their financial secretary. Ruth served on the Pension Committee and helped several people with workers compensation problems. She was active on the Community Services Committee and she served on the Local United Way Board. Her union work and her community involvement have earned her the respect of her peers and associates throughout northwestern Lower Michigan. There are many volunteers who understand the gift of giving and sharing and helping is truly its own reward. I sometimes think, Mr. Speaker, that my northern Michigan congressional district is richer than most in having so many volunteers, people who step up to meet needs and challenges with services not provided by government agencies or chartered organizations. Among these, I must acknowledge Ruth Hartwick with special affection. She has helped me in many ways since I first ran for this House seat, and I value her close personal friendship and her dedication to organized labor. I can't think of anyone more deserving of the Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).