Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3348 is an extremely important bipartisan piece of legislation for those citizens and communities that experience difficult winters year after year. In my district, which includes the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the northern section of the Lower Peninsula, residents endured snow for 8 consecutive months last winter. And I may add that last Friday the first snowflakes of this winter fell. In my area, in my district, we recorded a total snow accumulation of 321 inches or nearly 27 feet. If my colleagues can imagine for a moment, that level of snow would completely bury the typical two-story family home and would nearly reach the ceiling of this House Chamber. Whether the cause of the disaster is flooding, fire, hurricane, like the recent devastation in North Carolina caused by Hurricane Fran, or snow, we gauge the impact of a weather event in terms of the number of people it affects and the magnitude of its financial impact. The winter of 1995-96 was not a single storm but rather a series of recordbreaking storms. The total accumulation of record-breaking snowfalls pushed road crews and local communities to the brink of financial disaster. The financial havoc these storms wreaked on my district will be felt for years to come. The storm caused snow and flood damage to roads and structures, curtailed agricultural planting, delayed home building and tourism, and induced other detrimental personal and financial effects. As a result, local communities in northern Michigan faced budget overruns of at least $10 million. Many local governments do not have the reserves to tap for this type of unexpected disaster. They must increase their taxes, cut their community programs and services, or even curtail road repair and maintenance, causing layoffs and other future community and regional hardships. The Snow Removal Policy Act will finally clarify FEMA's regulations regarding snow-related emergencies, giving communities the opportunity for relief from winter's violent and deadly storms. I want to emphasize, however, that despite the clarification in these guidelines, no Federal assistance can be provided if the Governor of the State does not make a request for financial or disaster aid. Regardless of the nature of the extent of any natural disaster, the decision to ask for Federal help would remain with the State's chief executive. In the winter of 1993-94 my district received financial help from FEMA. I am pleased with that response, but this legislation is needed so there is no further delay in putting forth these guidelines. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my thanks to my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski and Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, for their assistance and guidance on this legislation. I want to especially thank my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], for sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation and working with me on it. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 3348.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, since you have reached the conclusion that there is a report, let me then go back to what Speaker Gingrich said in 1989, and I quote: The Speaker said: ``435 Members of theHouse should look at all the facts, should have available to them all the reports and all the background documents, and the American people should have the same.'' Mr. Speaker, since you have concluded there is a report, please release the report.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have talked about 100 pages that cost the taxpayers half a million dollars. I have asked when is a report a report? I have asked when a Member from Connecticut discusses it with the majority leader is it a report? I have asked when the majority leader then denies there is not a report, then is it a report? And, based upon that, according to the gentleman who made the objection and the ruling from the Chair, there is a report, if I reach your conclusions correctly. So if there is a report, then why do you know there is a report, why do the people over here know there is a report, and none of us know there is a report? So if there is a report, why do we not just release the report? That is my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point of order.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to speak on another matter, but I think I am prepared now to speak that in this body, Members have a right to speak. And if we cannot speak on theHouse floor, when we cannot mention words like report and what has happened to this country when one side is gagged because the other side has more votes than this side, I must ask, Mr. Speaker, when is a report a report? When a gentlewoman from Connecticut discusses it with the majority leader, is it then a report? When later that day the majority leader says, oh, no, there is no report, then it is not a report? When the American taxpayers pay a half million dollars and then get 100 pages back, is that a report? point of order

Mr. STUPAK. I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut was going to comment upon a 1990 statement made concerning a past case. Is the Speaker saying that is improper for her to do that?

Mr. STUPAK. I heard 1990. I just did not want another comment about something in anticipation, so the gentlewoman can at least finish her statement, in all due respect.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it would then be relevant for the speaker to comment on a 1990 Member without objection?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that because of delay of the Republican leadership and consideration of this bill past the Wednesday deadline, the gentleman from Florida, his State lost $25 million to improve the safe drinking water for its 13\1/2\ million citizens. I was a member of the conferees on this report and my colleagues know I was very proud of the bill we have. It is a great public policy bill. But to meet our needs we need $8.6 million to provide for all the Safe Drinking Water Act projects in this Nation. But instead, we found out that pigs do fly and there is such a thing as a pig in a poke because we have lost money because of delays, and we have also lost money because of the earmarking that went onto this bill, something we strongly objected to. For the past 4 years some of us have tried to come to this Congress to knock off the pork-like projects. Let my colleagues' projects stand on the merit of their project and not on who sits on a committee. That is the way it should be. But no, we cannot have that. As my colleagues know, we made a historic move this week. We did welfare reform, we did minimum wage earlier today, and we did some health care, but we just cannot seem to get away from those old bad habits we just cannot resist. Later today we are going to do a motion to recommit. The motion to recommit is going to say let us knock off the pork projects, let us let the legislation, let our colleagues' water projects stand on the merits, project against project. I am proud to put up my district against any district here on the projects. Let us not do this earmarking. It is wrong. It is contrary to why we came here. I hope each and every Member will look closely at our motion to recommit and knock off the earmarks. Let us break the bad habits that lead us to deficits that we struggled to get under control. We can do it if we would work together, but to take the needs of this country and for certain Members to carve out their own exception so they can have something to go back home and campaign on is wrong.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. He indicated that I had a Grand Maris project in this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. He should have been honest with the American people. Now this is a Safe Drinking Water Act. What the gentleman talked about is a break wall. Now I do not know last night if, in expending their definition of pork under Safe Drinking Water Act, they are now adding break walls.

Mr. STUPAK. Would the gentleman like us to take down his words so he can remember what he said?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention to the U.S. House of Representatives and this Nation not just the announcement of the retirement of an outstanding member of the clergy in my Northern Michigan congressional district, but that I have the opportunity to relay to you the many contributions that Reverend Edwin J. Frederick has made to his faith, community, and priesthood. Most affectionately known to all as Father Fred, he attended grade school and high school in his home town of Grand Rapids and later earned a Bachelor's degree at Sacred Heart in Detroit. Post graduate work earned him a Masters degree in Philosophy and Theology at Grand Seminary, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. On June 3, 1950, he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. During the 1950's, Father Fred was assigned to various churches in Michigan including Sacred Heart in Mt. Pleasant, St. Joseph's Church in Manistee, St. Michael's in Muskegon, and Our Lady of Assumption in Rothbury. After completing one year at the Carmelite Monastery in Traverse City in 1960, Father Fred was then assigned to the Traverse City Regional Psychiatric Hospital where he remained from 1959 until the hospital closed in 1989. For the past six years, Father Fred has served as Pastor of St. Joseph's parish in Mapleton, MI. It has been at St. Joseph's Parish where Father Fred has done his best work. As pastor, he has made numerous physical improvements to the parish and provided accessibility to the facilities for the physically impaired. Father Fred has touched many, many people over the years, but no one will question the tremendous influence he has had on and the love he has for children. He has baptized over 200 children in his last six years at St. Joseph's and truly considers them to be the lifeblood of the church and her future. The children of the parish, like the adults there and elsewhere, consider Father Fred to be more than their priest: they think of him as their friend. Father Fred has truly made his mark on society with his extensive work and effort on behalf of the needy. After the hospital closed in 1989, he founded the Father Fred Foundation, an organization that provides food and clothing to those in need. The foundation has gown from what was a very small office to what is now a large building with over 100 volunteers. Fortunately for the foundation, he will continue to serve as its director after his retirement. Father Fred reminds us every Thanksgiving that it is better ``to serve than to receive'' by hosting dinner at one of the area's finest restaurants, not for his parishioners, but for the needy. Father Fred recruits elected government leaders, community and business leaders as servers for his guests. Father Fred has been recognized by numerous organizations for his work, including the Traverse City Chamber of Commerce who presented him in 1991 with the Distinguished Service Award. He is also the recipient of the Sara Hardy Memorial Award in recognition of his work on behalf of human rights. In the book of Hebrews it states, ``one does not take this honor on his own initiative, but only when called upon by God, as Aaron was * * * you are a priest forever.'' Father Fred has been called by God to be a spiritual leader and a humanitarian and has fulfilled each of those callings now and forever. Mr. Speaker, Father Fred will be honored at a retirement dinner on August 11, 1996 at the Grand Traverse Resort in Traverse City, Michigan. At that time, past and present parishioners, friends and family will thank him for all that he has done for them and so many others. On behalf of northern Michigan, the entire State and this House, I thank Father Fred for his contributions to so many causes and extend to him best wishes for an enjoyable retirement from the church and for many years to come as Director of the Father Fred Foundation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives and this Nation the 100th anniversary of Suomi College, located in Hancock, MI, a small community of about 4,000 people on the Keweenaw Peninsula in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The celebration of this event will occur this weekend, August 3-4, 1996. Named for its founders' homeland and heritage, Suomi College was an outgrowth of the need for higher education for the sons and daughters of the hardy Finnish immigrants that settled in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, especially Hancock. They were quick to realize that education was a key to improving quality of life in their adopted country and wanted to make this opportunity available to all young men and women. At the same time, there was a strong desire to retain the proud ethic heritage that was brought with them, as well as the religious influence of the Lutheran Church. It was out of this framework that Suomi College was founded in 1896. Suomi College proved early on to be highly innovative by offering scholarships, work opportunities, loans and other support services to students. It is a college that in its early years often saw gifts and tuition payments come, not as cash, but as contributions of food, firewood, books and building materials. The school struggled financially in the early 1900's, but never lost sight of its stated mission of providing a quality education. As money was raised in the 1930's for expansion and to provide financial assistance, the Great Depression forced these funds to be rechanneled to pay for daily operating expenses. In the 1940's, enrollment and revenues started to significantly increase only to be halted again with the start of World War II. Regardless of these and other setbacks, leaders of the school, such as Viljo K. Mikander, who served as president of Suomi during their 50th anniversary, provided the encouragement to continue, even to the point of suggesting the school expand to a 4-year college of liberal arts. It is the belief in the institution and its mission by its current and past administrations, faculty, students and supporters that have allowed it to get through the tough times and become the progressive, innovative and growing college it is today. Suomi College is establishing an outstanding record and providing excellent opportunities for its students. Today, thousands of Suomi alumni are present in every walk of life and in every area of the country with more than 1,600 area residents alone having graduated or completed courses at Suomi. Suomi graduates are leaders in law, religion, medicine, administration and many other fields and all have as a basis of their education in their course work done at Suomi, nurtured in the Finnish heritage. Liberal arts and humanities serve as a mainstay for this small, personalized, church-related college. Math and science are also strongly encouraged in any curriculum. To date, Suomi has been a 2-year community college granting associate degrees. However, beginning this fall, a new 3-year baccalaureate degree will be offered, again demonstrating the innovative thought that Suomi is known for. A 3-year degree obtained over eight consecutive semesters significantly reduces costs and provides greater efficiency and applicability of courses taken and quickly moves young people into the workforce. The Suomi College Centennial Celebration this weekend will be highlighted by several events including the groundbreaking ceremony for its new chapel and library expansion. In attendance for this event will be Archbishop John Vikstrom of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland as well as Presiding Bishop H. George Anderson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and Bishop Dale Skogman of the Northern Great Lakes Synod. Mr. Speaker, the 100-year history of Suomi College will serve the institution well in its second century as it continues to serve the Upper Peninsula and this Nation. On behalf of the First Congressional District, the State of Michigan and the House of Representatives, I congratulate President Robert Ubbelohde, his staff, the faculty, the student body and the Hancock community on this momentous occasion.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the House and the entire Nation of the 14th annual FinnFest USA festival, which will be held in Marquette, MI, on August 7-11, 1996. FinnFest USA is a national festival, open to everyone, celebrating the culture of Finland and Finnish Americans. It is held annually, hosted each year at a different site, and this year it is being held in Michigan's Upper Peninsula at Marquette. FinnFest USA traces its beginnings back to September 12, 1982, when Tauri Aaltio, executive director of Finland Society, Helsinki, Finland, hosted a meeting in Minneapolis, MN. At the meeting, 39 representatives from Finnish American organizations from throughout the United States met to discuss the new organization. One of the goals of the organization is to work with new immigrants in the United States and to keep their cultural ties. So Finnish families and those who wish they were Finnish come together to celebrate their ethnic heritage. At this first meeting the Finland Society voted to call their annual festival ``FinnFest USA''. The first FinnFest was held the following year on August 7, 1983. The 39 original representatives voted and approved that this annual festival was to be held each year in a different location in the United States. Its bylaws and articles of incorporation were read and approved. The election of the first board of directors was held, and it was decided that there would be nine board members. Three members from each the Western, Midwest, and Eastern parts of the United States. FinnFest USA provides Finnish Americans an opportunity to meet one another and to broaden and deepen their knowledge of Finland and Finnish American history and culture. This year's event will include music, folk dancing, dances, educational forums, arts and crafts, exhibits, banquet, and other food events, singing and much more. The FinnFest USA '96 theme is ``Finn Family Reunion: Passing the Torch of Heritage,'' indicating the festival will be a big family reunion. In recognition of the large number of Finnish Americans who reside in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, FinnFest USA '96 will be making its third appearance in 14 years in the Upper Peninsula. Carl Pellonpaa is president of FinnFest USA '96. Carl is the host of Suomi Kutsuu (Finland Calling), the only weekly Finnish language television program in the United States. The unique bond between the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and Finland was evident by the recent visit to my Washington, DC, office of the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Ms. Riita Uosakainen. I found Speaker Uosakainen to be an outgoing, thoughtful person who truly represents her country, her people and all Finnish Americans in a warm, graceful manner. I look forward to joining Ms. Uosakainen, Mr. Pellonpaa, all the ``true Finns'' and the ``fake Finns'' at the opening of FinnFest USA '96 in Marquette on August 7, 1996. Mr. Speaker, FinnFest USA and Finnish Americans enjoy a proud history. On behalf of the State of Michigan, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the entire Nation, I would like to declare FinnFest USA Observance Week, August 5-11, 1996, and congratulate FinnFest USA on an excellent festival which is recognized as part of our Nation's and our Finnish heritage.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the House and the entire Nation the 50th year anniversary of Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, MI, on January 1, 1996. Lake Superior State University has a growing history stretching back to when it was Fort Brady in 1893. When the fort closed, local businessmen wanted to find use for the buildings and property that would benefit the community. About the same time, the Michigan College of Mining & Technology--currently Michigan Technological University-- was looking for a way to accommodate the great number of war veterans who had applied to the college and had been looking for a branch site. Thus, the Michigan College of Mining & Technology branch college was established for two purposes: to increase the college's facilities for the education of war veterans and to serve the Upper Peninsula, an area comprising one-sixth of the State, that is a considerable distance from other institutions of higher learning. The Michigan College of Mining & Technology branch at Sault Ste. Marie provided engineering students with their first year of engineering studies and a second year of studies in chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering, or forestry. In addition in 1946, Michigan State University set up a general studies program so that liberal arts credits could be received in Sault Ste. Marie for the first 2 years of course work, and then would be transferable to other 4-year institutions. In 1966, the college was renamed Lake Superior State College and accorded 4-year status by the Michigan State Board of Education and authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees. The first 4-year graduating class was in 1967. On January 1, 1970, Lake Superior State College was granted complete autonomy and separated from Michigan Technological University. On November 4, 1987, Gov. James Blanchard signed legislation changing Lake Superior State from a college to university. Since opening in 1946 with a class of 272, the university has grown steadily, and currently has an enrollment of approximately 3,000 students. The campus is a blend of historic and modern architecture that serves the academic, residential, and recreational needs of the university's faculty, students, and community. Sheri Davie, Chair of the Superior Legacy Committee is sponsoring an all-school reunion weekend this August 2-4, 1996. One of the key events slated is the burying of a time capsule on the campus to be opened 50 years from now. Besides a fine academic and cultural center, Lake Superior State University is a division I, NCAA hockey powerhouse. Even though it is the smallest division I school, college's hockey champions reside in Sault Ste. Marie. Mr. Speaker, Lake Superior State University has a proud history. On behalf of the State of Michigan and the entire Nation, I would like to congratulate Lake Superior State University on 50 years of quality education.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the House and the entire Nation the 125th anniversary of Rogers City. Rogers City, found in Presque Isle County in the northeast corner of Michigan, will be celebrating its 125th birthday this weekend in conjunction with its Nautical City Festival. Rogers City's long and distinguished history began in the late 1860's when William B. Rogers and his partner, Albert Moliter, hired Frederick Denny Larke to locate and land in northern Michigan for their company. The expedition led Mr. Larke to a beautiful area in northern Michigan, known in the 1860's as Alpena County. After returning to Detroit, Mr. Larke organized a number of German and Polish emigrants and returned to Alpena County in the spring of 1869. Rogers City was incorporated in 1877, just 2 years after the Presque Isle area broke away from Alpena to become its own county. Although Frederick Larke was responsible for leading the settlers to the area, Albert Moliter is more often recognized as the founder. Mr. Moliter was an educated man who had a lot of influence in the small town. He began many businesses, including a store, but was unpopular with his fellow citizens. The resentment toward Mr. Moliter, real or unreal, culminated in tragedy when an individual shot and killed him as he worked in his store. Albert Moliter was not the only educated man in Rogers City. The town's first two mayors were Charles Pfanneschmidt and Philip O'Farrell. Dr. Pfanneschmidt was one of two doctors in the area and the only dentist. Many other men made their marks and expanded Rogers City through business ventures which included Wendy's Saloon, the Kitchen House, Larke's Drugstore, and finally the county's courthouse. With all of the distinguished men in Rogers City's history, the men who the town was named after never set foot in the area. William Evan Rogers was instrumental in financing and organizing the expedition that led to Presque Isle County but as a prominent figure from the east coast he never found a desire to move to the remote land many miles north of Detroit. Surrounded by dense forests of white and Norway pine, white cedar, hemlock, and heavy hardwood, timber became Rogers City main industry. The town is located right on Lake Huron. By using its dock the town found an efficient way to transport the timber downstate. No railway went as far north as Presque Isle County and the automobile had not yet been introduced. The community did all of its trading by vessel. Eventually, too many people settled in the area. All of the trees were wiped out and no other industry appeared profitable in northern Michigan. Crawford's Quarry, later renamed Calcite, was located just 2\1/2\ miles from Rogers City. There was fierce competition between these two towns especially since Quarry had attempted to become the county seat but Rogers City was awarded the honor. Crawford's Quarry lost many of its citizens and the whole city seemed to shut down. Suddenly, in 1910, a demand for high-calcium limestone was created. Calcite, formerly known as Crawford's Quarry, housed the largest limestone quarry in the world. Once again, Calcite was alive and booming. As jobs opened up more people moved to Rogers City. In 1912, Rogers City had a population of 600. By 1950, more that 4,000 people resided in the town. With the new industry came a renewed need for a railway that came all the way to Rogers City. On December 18, 1911, the residents of Rogers City welcomed their first train. Every citizen was waiting at the depot with bated breath. A huge ``Welcome'' sign hung above the tracks. When the train arrived the entire town broke out in cheers and laughter. One observer stated that the date December 18, 1911, means the same for Rogers City, as the date July 4, 1776, means for the United States. Mr. Speaker, today Rogers City is a proud community, just as it was on December 18, 1911, and in the spring of 1869 when it incorporated. This small community has stayed together through good times and bad. Many citizens can trace their roots back to one of the original 21 names signed on the original petition for incorporation. It is this pride in their community that has kept Rogers City so strong for the last 125 years. On behalf of northern Michigan and the entire Nation, I would like to congratulate Rogers City on this, their 125th anniversary.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention and that of the U.S. House of Representatives a special ceremony that will be held this Friday, August 2, in Wells, MI, in my congressional district. On Friday, the family of Navy aviation Radioman Second Class Stephen D. Bakran will gather at the gardens of Rest Memorial Park in Wells, MI, as his remains are laid to rest. It is the tradition of our Nation to honor our war dead. What makes the ceremony for Airman Bakran so special is the fact that this important closure for the family comes more than five decades after this young man was killed in action. From Navy officials and other sources, we know that Stephen Bakran was part of a special bombing squadron on a unique mission assigned to the U.S.S. Ranger, CV-4, the first ship built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier. Stephen Bakran came to be aboard the Ranger after enlisting in the Navy on June 27, 1941, only weeks after his graduation from high school. The eldest son in a Catholic family of 11 children, Stephen is remembered by family, friends, teachers, and others as an honest, hard working, caring individual. The son of Croatian immigrants, Stephen is recalled in his role as a money earner for the family on his paper route, a dutiful son working in the family garden or tending the farm animals, and a responsible sibling changing and washing diapers of his younger brothers and sisters. Airman Bakran is part of the first U.S. carrier based mission launch against Nazi-held Norway. Code named Operation Leader, the planes of the mission sank Nazi shipping and caused other damage at the cost of two SBD-5 Dauntless scout bombers. One of these bombers that were downed claimed the lives of Stephen Bakran and his pilot, Lieutenant Clyde A. Tucker, Jr. of Alexandria, LA. Reports say that Stephen Bakran was still firing his machine gun as his plane went down on October 4, 1943. Although the Navy listed Stephen Bakran and Clyde Tucker as killed in action, it was not until 1990 that a Norwegian diving club and a Norwegian historical research vessel found the wreckage of the aircraft off the coast of Bodo, Norway, in 150 feet of water. It was not until July of 1993 that divers were able to locate and recover the two aviators. The remains of Clyde Tucker were identified in 1994 and are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. However, DNA tests did not conclusively identify the remains of Stephen Bakran until this year. I am pleased that I was able to assist the family by working with our military officials during the identification process, and now I am extremely grateful to everyone, including those who helped to find, identify and transport Steve Bakran back to his family where they will be able to find a final resting place for this fallen warrior. Today as we watch other families struggle with the tragedies of the disappearance of loved ones in a dark watery grave, we find comfort in witnessing that the search for our military missing in action never ends and the door of hope, hope that they may be found, never closes. Mr. Speaker, let us remember the Bakran family in our thoughts and prayers on Friday. I regret that I will not be able to attend the funeral, as I will be here attending to legislative business. The Bakran family, the Wells and Escanaba community will be at Steve's funeral, but my family will join the Bakran family in a final salute to our World War II Navy veteran who is laid to rest.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the House and the entire Nation the tricentennial celebration of Ste. Anne's de Michilimackinac Church on July 26, 1996. Although the exact date of foundation is not known, the church has baptismal records dating back to 1695. The tricentennial celebration was delayed a year in order to wait for the completion of Fishers of Men, a book written by Jesuit Brother Jim Boynton of St. Ignace, MI, detailing the extraordinary history of Ste. Anne's de Michilimackinac. In 1670 Jesuits landed on Mackinac Island, situated between the Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas in the Straits of Mackinac. The missionaries, along with members of the Huron tribe, intended to teach the Chippewa and Ottawa Indians the way of the Lord. However, within a year the Jesuits left Mackinac Island and relocated at St. Ignace, named for St. Ignatius Loyola. The island had proved to be agriculturally weak and the land to the north in the Upper Peninsula was perfect for growing corn. From St. Ignace the missionaries traveled to surrounding areas in attempt to spread the Catholic faith. The Jesuits became the peacekeepers of the region. In the late 1670's French fur traders entered the straits to buy furs from the American Indians. Unfortunately, the French used less than honorable tactics. It came to the attention of the church that the fur traders were selling brandy to the Indians with the intention of taking the furs, without paying, once the Indians got too drunk to understand what was happening. The Jesuits got involved and the injustices came to an end. The Jesuits constructed the area's first Roman Catholic church in 1742, within the walls of Fort Michilimackinac located today in Mackinaw City, at the top of the Lower Peninsula. In 1761 tempers flared between the American Indians and the British occupying Fort Michilimackinac. This led to the massacre of many British fur traders and members of the British Army. The Jesuits were responsible for establishing a peaceful relationship between the Indians and surviving British just 1 year after the massacre occurred. This provided an opportunity for the British to occupy the fort once again. The English colony moved from Fort Michilimackinac in 1781 to prepare for any retribution from the American Revolution. Fort Mackinac was built on Mackinac Island in the same location where it stands today. The civilians established a town just below the walls of the fort. The congregation did not want to leave their church behind on the mainland. That winter, when the straits froze, the church was disassembled, the pieces dragged across the ice, and then the church was rebuilt on the island. The congregation moved their church again 1827 when Madame Magdelaine LaFromboise donated a large piece of land to the Church. Because of the many renovations which have occurred on the building over the years, none of the original structure remains standing. The new building has been renovated to look just like it did in the 1890's. Father Jim Williams, Ste. Anne's current pastor, made numerous beautiful renovations for this tricentennial celebration. This has been a very exciting year for Ste. Anne. Brother Jim Boynton completed his thesis, through his extensive studies about the history of Ste. Anne's, to earn his master's degree in history. His research has taken him from Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, MA, to Quebec City, Montreal, Paris, and Rome. His research resulted in ``Fishers of Men.'' The book is a chronicle of Catholicism coming into the Straits of Mackinac and the history of Ste. Anne's. Brother Boynton, a native of St. Ignace, will be teaching at the University of Detroit Jesuit High School this fall. Fortunately, he will be able to attend the tricentennial celebration on July 26. Father Jim Williams will begin the celebration with a Thanksgiving mass in the morning. The afternoon will include an ice cream social, and a pageant will be held in the evening honoring the church's builders and rebuilders. From primitive beginnings, like the tiny mustard seed in Mark's gospel (Mark 4:30-32), Ste. Anne's has grown great inviting all to find shelter in her branches and comfort in her shade. For over 300 years, Ste. Anne's has welcomed visitors and nurtured Mackinac Island, body and soul. Mr. Speaker, Ste. Anne's de Michilimackinac has a long, rich, proud history. Brother Boynton has been able to capture the fabulous story of Catholicism in northern Michigan in his book ``Fishers of Men.'' On behalf of northern Michigan, the Catholic Church, and the entire Nation, I would like to congratulate Brother Boynton, Father Jim Williams, and the congregation of Ste. Anne's de Michilimackinac on 301 years of prayer and dedication.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the Deutsch amendment. As you know, I was a police officer and have been a strong advocate of the COPS Program. At the age of 32 I suffered a permanent injury. I am medically retired from the Michigan State Police. At the time I was 32 years old. I have two children and a wife. How do you provide, not just for the injuries that you have suffered, but how do you provide for your family, how do you provide for your children health coverage if the jurisdiction that hired you does not provide it? The Deutsch amendment says those that are involved in emergency situations, firefighters and police officers, would be allowed to continue their insurance coverage for not only themselves but also their families. We ask much of police officers and firefighters. The least we can do, when they are injured performing their duties, is to provide at least some degree of respectability and financial stability by providing health insurance for them. I was fortunate that the State of Michigan provided that for me when I received my injuries, but unfortunately, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] has pointed out, that is not the case all around this country. We ask many things of police officers. I would ask that we not leave them hanging, that we provide some degree of security for them and their families when they do meet these permanently disabling injuries.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. While Representative Brown may be correct that funding for the sea lamprey control program belongs in the State Department, the elimination of this funding would be devastating to the Great Lakes fishing industry. It's estimated that the total economic value of the Great Lakes fisheries is nearly $4 billion per year. Between Americans and Canadians combined, over 3.3 million people fish the Great Lakes recreationally, supporting about 54,000 full-time jobs. Over the course of its 1-to-2-year adult life, a single sea lamprey can kill 40 or more pounds of fish. In 1992, 71 percent of the lake trout in Northern Lake Huron were killed by the lamprey. In Lake Superior, about 40 percent of the annual mortality of lake trout is attributable to lamprey predation. For over 40 years, the United States and Canada have abided by a binational treaty to fight the sea lamprey problem. The elimination of funding for the U.S. portion of this program would violate this longstanding international agreement. The sea lamprey control program has been a huge success. The binational control program has reduced sea lamprey population by 90 percent from their record highs in the 1950's. However, cutting funding for sea lamprey control now would be devastating, as complete eradication of the species is not possible. In addition, the conventional form of fighting the sea lamprey, the chemical lampricide treatment, is rapidly increasing in cost, having tripled since 1986. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has been able to suppress lampreys by 90 percent. Any reduction in funding would undermine the Commission's efforts and once again jeopardize the Great Lakes fishing industry. Even a short-term interruption in lamprey control could be devastating to the fishery. A disruption in funding could allow for a severe increase in sea lamprey population, causing greater lamprey predation and a critical loss of Great Lakes fish. The sea lamprey problem is not limited to the Great Lakes region. The lamprey has been known to appear in Lake Champlain and the Finger Lakes in New York. The last thing we want is for the sea lamprey to become like the zebra mussel--another nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species that causes millions of dollars in damages. Originally discovered in the Great Lakes in the 1980's, the zebra mussel is spreading rapidly across the United States, having been found throughout the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast, in Chesapeake Bay, and in isolated locations as far away as California. Cutting funding for the sea lamprey program would erase the progress we have made in controlling the sea lamprey, and threaten the fishing industry with a population explosion of this deadly species.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I mean look, if the partnership that I spoke of is no longer there, that we are in Medicaid which pays for nursing home care, and it is $38,000 a year, and you are only there for 5 days and they pull the rug out from underneath you, who pays for it? If the senior citizen cannot, it goes to the family. It is an indirect tax on the families of this country. You are not going to throw your parents out on the street for 360 days and get 5 days next year and then throw them out again. You are going to pick up that cost, that $30,000 a year. Who is going to be able to afford that?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me. I would like to take special note of the work he has done in this area, in bringing this health care and health issue to the attention of the American public, and also Ms. DeLauro, who has been here night after night helping raise the level of consciousness of what is really going on in this country and in this Congress. As I sat in my office tonight, I heard you speak of what the Speaker had said about trying to get Medicare, ``We will let it wither on the vine,'' and Mr. Dole bragging about how in 1965, he fought against Medicare. Then I was pleased to come down tonight to join you and Mr. Klink. We sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, which has jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid. Again, Mr. Durbin, who was here tonight, had many, many words to speak on this subject. We were just talking about trust here a few minutes ago. Who do they trust to look after the health care needs of this Nation? Is it going to be the President or citizen Bob Dole? As we take a look at it, I think more than just words we should look beyond the words. Let us look at some of the proposals that have been brought forth before the Committee on Commerce, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment which both of us sit on now. Who do the children and the seniors of this country trust to provide for their needs? If we take a look at Medicaid, and we talked about Medicare, I guess is the most popular, but Medicaid and the drastic reductions proposed in Medicaid, Medicaid takes care of children, but also two-thirds of our seniors rely on Medicaid for nursing home care. But the so-called Medicaid reform proposal that was put forth in early June here before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Democrats insisted on a couple things. First of all, we insisted to ensure that there is a safety net for elderly, the disabled and for impoverished children. The Democrats also insisted that Medicaid be a joint Federal-State partnership which would work together to provide critical health care needs for those who really truly need it in this country. What did the Republican bill do? It removed the guarantee of health care for the elderly and disabled and replaced it with the hope of Governors across this country. I have no problem with Governors. I think they do a good job. But what my Republican friends forgot and they did not add was, we give it to the Governors, the reason why we have a Medicaid Program in the first place is because the States could not and did not provide for those people who needed care. So the GOP bill, while it allows the States to define the scope, the amount and duration of any Medicaid benefit, and in that bill it states the Governors need to provide a nursing home benefit, it would allow the States to limit that nursing home benefit to just 5 days. People do not go to the nursing home because they only need care for 5 days. So they would have 5 days a year, that is what the bill said, 5 days every calendar year. The average care for a person in a nursing home is $38,000. So we are going to help with 5 days' worth and after that they are on their own. Where does that money go? For all the populations that this bill, the Republican bill, purported to protect, the elderly, disabled, children and low-income families, it did not even guarantee that they would receive quality care, let alone adequate care, when the nursing home benefit is defined as 5 days. I received a letter from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association on this block grant, Medicaid block grant proposal. Here is what they said, and I quote: We fear that under the Republican Medicaid block grant program, health care services for our most vulnerable population, the elderly living in nursing homes, the poor and children, may be jeopardized as hospitals who continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for these individuals face reduced payments. In other words, they are going to cut, for those who provide the care, even further. Here is what else the Republican bill did. Currently, under current law, we have a prohibition against spousal and family impoverishment. That is current law. You cannot put a family into poverty while they are trying to provide for their parent in a nursing home. Unlike current law, the proposal does not prohibit States from charging high copayments for Medicaid or contributions associated with long-term care. Another troubling aspect of the proposal, and I asked the drafters of the bill when it came before the committee, I said this legislation does not require the benefits provided by the program to be provided equally across a State. I am from Michigan. I represent northern Michigan, a very rural area. So, for instance, if Michigan chose to provide for long-term care in Grand Rapids, would they deny that same long-term care benefit to the folks in the upper peninsula of Michigan? The drafters of the bill said they could do that. So even in the State they are not even going to get equal treatment if it is left to this Republican bill on Medicaid. Medicaid recipients and their families cannot afford substantial cuts in State spending and the Federal Government, and we cannot afford to shift it all from the Federal Government to the State because neither one can do it standing alone. But I want to balance the budget. I know Mr. Pallone wants to, and Mr. Doggett and Mr. Durbin, but there is a right way and there is a wrong way to do it. So to try to fix things, Democrats offered a number of amendments on Medicaid. Let me just hit 12 of them, if I can, briefly. Let us have an amendment in there would effectively prohibit fraud and abuse in Medicaid. That was rejected. That was Mr. Dingell who brought up that amendment. So we said, Ms. Eshoo from California brought up an amendment that said, let us have a guarantee of coverage for children, make sure the kids are taken care of under Medicaid. Rejected. Well, then let us take care of the elderly who need nursing home care. That is what Medicare, that is what we spend two-thirds of the money for. Let us do that. That was your amendment and Mr. Markey from Massachusetts. That amendment was rejected. We said, surely there has to be some compassion here. So let us provide coverage for the elderly who have Alzheimer's disease. That was Mr. Deutsch of Florida. He offered that amendment. Rejected. So we said, surely we are going to take care of our veterans who need nursing home care. Remember that one? Mr. Gordon of Tennessee brought up that amendment. They will not even take care of veterans. That was rejected under the Medicaid bill. So we said, all right, can we at least take care of the seniors who are in a nursing home now receiving Medicaid benefits. can we take care of that one? Mr. Klink brought up that amendment. That was rejected. Well, how about one of the Republicans, Mr. Ganske. He is a doctor on the committee. He brought up, let us just guarantee current law to take care of the kids. That was rejected. Well, Mr. Richardson, he brought up the amendment that said, let us guarantee coverage for native Americans, Indians. I have seven tribes in my district, great amendment. That was rejected by the majority party. How about just allowing, this was Mr. Engel of New York and Mr. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, how about just allowing the right of the elderly to choose their own nursing home. If you are going to go on Medicaid, you go to a nursing home, seniors, you get to choose which one you want to go to. Rejected. How about Ms. Furse of Oregon, who said, how about if we take care of pregnant women and infants, kids under 2. that was rejected 14 to 25. We said, all right, how about current law, we provide for women with cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer. Can we keep that coverage going under Medicaid. No, that was rejected, 17 to 23. We lost that one. I said, hey, I am concerned about rural areas. We are treated different than urban areas. Pay us the same, whether you live in Escanaba, MI in the Upper Peninsula or in Grand Rapids, if you are in a nursing home you should get paid the same. That was rejected. That way my amendment. How about just restoring the minimum payment standards for hospital and nursing homes and managed care plans, restore the current minimum funding for them. That your amendment, Mr. Pallone. That was rejected 16 to 24. So the point is, it is more than just words. We offered commonsense amendment for breast cancer, veterans, to let seniors choose their nursing homes, take care of children, infants, help them out, come together in a partnership, that is what this trust issue is all about. Every one of our proposals were rejected. So more than just the words of citizen Bob Dole or more than just the words of Speaker Newt Gingrich, look at what their legislation really does. As we move into this election year, I do hope we have debates. And I hope they are not about just the words of what someone said but, rather, the legislation they are proposing, because I think when you look at the legislation that is proposed and what we as Democrats have tried to stand up for, that safety net for seniors, for veterans, for children, and see it being cut away, torn away by votes of 16 to 24, where we lose commonsense amendments, then I think the trust will be with the Democratic Party. The trust will be with more than just words but, rather, with what the legislation proposes. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue. It is always a pleasure to work with you on the Energy and Commerce Committee, especially the Health and Environment Subcommittee, as we continue to bring common sense to this area.