Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the milestone events in the history of our nation was the adoption of the Constitution by a convention of the states in 1787. But another significant event in our history took place that year. Congress, operating under the governing document known as the Articles of Confederation, approved a plan for the growth of the Untied States known as the Northwest Ordinance. I call these facts to mind, Mr. Speaker, because the Northwest Ordinance spelled out to the world that the United States planned to settle the areas that would eventually become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and my own state of Michigan. Despite this early commitment by the young nation to expand, settlement came late to many of these areas. In my congressional district the Village of Vanderbilt is celebrating its centennial, making it a young community even by the standards of this young nation. The community plans to mark its celebration with three days of festivities at the end of July. Communities like Vanderbilt sprang into being when railroads pushed north into the vast timberlands of the upper Midwest. Vanderbilt itself is named for Cornelius Vanderbilt--famously known as Commodore Vanderbilt--who in 1866 took over the railroad that runs through this small village, located near the northern end of Lower Michigan. The efforts of Commodore Vanderbilt to build for himself a sprawling rail empire are the stuff of American legend, the legendary tycoon did not visit all his holdings. As Vanderbilt local historian Bonnie Karslake has written, ``None of the Vanderbilts ever lived in northern Michigan, even though the town as named for them. Bonnie Karslake's history details the arrival of the first permanent settlers and the development of the first local businesses around 1880. Such business activity, like the Vanderbilt Bowl Factory under the proprietorship of G.G. Williams, were based on forest products. As Bonnie's history makes clear, however, a village truly becomes a community when other businesses and services arrive, such as the Vanderbilt Gazette in 1883 and the Corwith Township Library in 1884. Within a decade of 1879 the community acquired three hotels, a two- story school, three sawmills, a planing and shingle mill, a stave mill, and a store and post office. Among other professionals and tradesmen, it had a taxidermist, a shoemaker, a constable, a milliner, a barber, a liquor dealer, a druggist, blacksmiths, wagon makers and two justices of the peace. Though not yet incorporated as the Village of Vanderbilt, by 1887 a community had sprung to life in the North Woods, much as the writers of the Northwest Ordinance had envisioned 100 years before. Elizabeth Haus, village president, has said that residents have planned ``an old-time celebration'' to mark the milestone 100 years. In addition to celebrating the centennial of Vanderbilt's incorporation, the community will also mark the 100th birthday of the Vanderbilt Community Church building, one of the centers of community life. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my House colleagues join me in wishing the people of Vanderbilt a joyous centennial celebration and in praying the community can thrive and continue to be a great place to live, work and raise families.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for yielding to me, and I would like to engage in a short dialogue with the subcommittee chairman. First, let me thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), as well as the entire subcommittee and the full committee, for their work on this bill. It is a good bill. However, I would like to talk about the Maritime Administration funding for the six State maritime training academies. The funding for all six schools in this year's bill is roughly the same as last year. Great Lakes Maritime Academy in Traverse City, Michigan, is the only one of the six State schools that trains marine pilots as well as deck and engine officers. As the gentleman from the coastal State of Virginia is well aware, our Nation is dependent upon waterborne commerce. Great Lakes shipping is vital to our country's industrial economy. I believe that each of these State academies should receive a minimum of $500,000 for their base funding. I would like to know whether the chairman will support conference language that would direct a minimum allocation of at least $500,000 to each State maritime academy. I appreciate the chairman's interest in this matter, and I look forward to working together to ensure that all the State maritime academies receive the support they deserve to fulfill their critical mission.

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

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, why have all of us from the Committee on Commerce come up here to debate this issue and are opposed to it? Because this is exactly what happened. For 2 years we have been working on this project: reimportation. When it leaves this country and comes back into this country, we do not know what it is. This is one post office, where 721 parcels came back in. We cannot tell what it is, how it got here, how it was made, what it even is made of. This is the yellow powder we speak of. This is boric acid and yellow highway paint. They do it to put on these pills which they put in this blister pack for Poncet. Nothing we can use medically in this country. This is about drug safety. It is not priced for senior citizens. All of us Democrats, most of us Republicans, would like to see lower drug prices. This is drug safety. For 2 years we have been working on this issue. Do not limit the FDA's ability to do enforcement when these drugs like this highway paint are coming in and being put on pills and we are supposed to take it as a safe drug. Reject this amendment. If you want to pass meaningful legislation, pass the Allen bill.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, with all due respect to the author of the amendment, it is a poorly drafted amendment. What it says is the FDA has to approve drugs if they appear to be FDA-approved drugs and do not appear to be a controlled substance and appears to be manufactured or processed in an establishment registered pursuant to section 501. Well, look at these drugs we found in our investigation. Again, energy and commerce has done this investigation. This is Hong Kong, 1999, here is the counterfeit. Here is the genuine. It appears to be the same, even though they are not. Here is one from 1986, Great Britain. This is Zantac. Again, there is a counterfeit; and there is a genuine. Everything appears to be the same all the way down to the blister pack, all the writing, everything on here. The Gutknecht amendment says this ``all appears.'' I do not think we want ``to appear'' with the health and safety of our people. Where is the safety net for our senior citizens underneath this amendment? We cannot allow reimportation if it ``appears'' okay. The FDA, the Customs do not have the resources to open up every one of these and make sure it is the real thing. We have had example after example given here under the Sanders amendment and now the Gutknecht amendment. Do not allow this amendment to go through because it appears that the senior citizen is going to be helped out, or the single mother, or whoever it may be. They cannot be distinguished. To run the tests are $6,000 to $8,000 per test to determine if it is the genuine thing. There are letters in the offices of my colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice. There are letters in the offices of my colleagues from the FDA asking us not to approve the Gutknecht amendment, not to approve the Sanders amendment; and I would submit both of these letters for the Record as they are both the FDA and the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration opposition to these amendments. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC, July 11, 2001. Hon. W.J. Tauzin, Chairman, Hon. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dingell: Thank you for asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to comment on two certain proposed amendments to H.R. 2330. In furtherance of the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the DEA is pleased to address the importation of drugs in the United States and submits the following comments on the proposed amendments. These proposed amendments would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from using any of its funds received under the Agriculture Appropriations Act to enforce certain provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that pertain to the importation of prescription drugs. We oppose both of these proposed amendments because they would hinder the ability of federal law enforcement officials to ensure that drugs are imported into the United States in compliance with long-standing federal laws designed to protect the public health and safety. One of the proposed amendments would prohibit the FDA from using any of its appropriated funds to prevent a person ``who is not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' from importing from certain specified countries ``FDA-approved'' prescription drugs that are not controlled substances. This proposal would be in conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is DEA's governing statute. The basic foundation of the CSA is the ``closed'' system of distribution of controlled substances, under which all persons in the legitimate distribution chain (manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers) must be registered with DEA and maintain strict accounting for all transactions. This regulatory scheme, administered by DEA, is designed to prevent diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels. However, DEA can maintain no control over the distribution chain and prevent diversion where American consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Somewhat similarly, the law that the FDA administers (the FDCA), cannot be effectuated where American consumers purchase their drugs abroad. Among the ways that the FDCA protects the American public is by requiring good manufacturing practices, proper labeling, and safe handling to prevent adulteration. There is no way to ensure such protections to American consumers if they are allowed to purchase drugs from foreign sellers without FDA oversight. We recognize that the proposed amendment states that it does not apply to controlled substances. However, despite this wording, the proposed amendment would provide a potential loophole that could be exploited by traffickers in controlled substances. Every day, prescription drugs, including controlled substances, are illegally shipped into the United States by mail or private carrier. Those who ship controlled substances in this fashion do not label their packages as containing controlled substances. Under the proposed amendment, drug traffickers could send shipments of controlled substances into the United States marked ``FDA- approved noncontrolled substance'' and the FDA would be powerless to take any investigative steps or to assist the United States Customs Service (USCS) or DEA in intercepting these illegal shipments. An additional concern with the proposal is the use of the phrase ``an individual who is not in the business of importing prescription drugs.'' This terminology is vague, impractical, and inconsistent with that use historically in American drug laws. The FDCA and the CSA have always used the concept of ``registration.'' Under the FDCA, only those manufacturers registered with the FDA may import prescription drugs. Under the CSA, persons must be registered with DEA to import controlled substances.\1\ Moreover, it would be an undue burden on law enforcement (and a benefit to traffickers) to require the government to prove that someone is ``in the business of importing prescription drugs'' before even commencing an investigation. Many unscrupulous persons would simply claim they are ``not in the business of importing prescription drugs'' in order to stifle investigation of potential criminal activity. \1\ The CSA makes an allowance for individuals to import and export small amounts of controlled substances that are medically necessary while traveling to and from the United States--but only for the legitimate personal medical use of the traveler and in strict compliance with DEA regulations; not by mail or private carrier. 21 USC 956(a); 21 CFR 1301.26. As with the proposed amendment described above, another proposal would likely be exploited by drug traffickers. This proposal would prevent the FDA from enforcing section 801(d)(1) of the FDCA (21 USC 381(d)(1)), which prohibits the reimportation into the United States of prescription drugs, except by the manufacturer of the drug. Under this proposal, a drug trafficker could stymie legitimate efforts by the FDA to assist in preventing illegal drug shipments into the United States simply by attaching a deceptive label to the shipment (e.g., by labeling a shipment of controlled substances as containing ``FDA-approved, reimported prescription drugs''). DEA, FDA and the USCS are currently facing enforcement challenges on many fronts with respect to prescription drug importation and smuggling. Information obtained from the USCS indicates that there is an increased volume of prescription drugs being imported through the mail as a result of the Internet. Although the CSA clearly prohibits importation of controlled substances in this manner, the FDA and USCS must inspect each package to ascertain the contents. Identifying a drug by its appearance and labeling is not an easy task. From a practical standpoint, inspectors cannot examine drug products and accurately determine the identity of such drugs or the degree of risk they pose to the individual who will use them. This is particularly true since these drugs are often intentionally mislabeled. Shipments from countries identified in the section 804(f) of the FDCA have been the source of a large amount of controlled substances that have been illegally imported. Additionally, the USCS inspectors on the southern and northern borders must determine whether each traveler entering the United States with a drug is complying with the FDCA and the CSA. By preventing the FDA from enforcing certain provisions of the FDCA regarding the importation of drugs, these amendments could be a windfall for criminals, giving them a new way to hide their activities behind a new restriction on law enforcement. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the foregoing amendments to H.R. 2330. Thank you for your attention to this mater. If we may be of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the presentation of this report. Sincerely, William B. Simpkins, Acting Administrator.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased for the second year in a row to offer this important bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). Unfortunately, the gentleman from New York cannot be here as he is on his way down to the White House, but we have his full support for this amendment. Our amendment adds $10 million to USDA's nutrition program for elderly meal programs, known as senior citizen meals and Meals on Wheels. This amendment offsets this additional spending by reducing by $10 million from the agriculture building and facilities and rental payments. Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of Michigan, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Program, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council on the Aging, and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. I am sure all of us have met and spoken with seniors in our districts. I am sure they have told us how much they have come to depend upon the senior meals they receive, be it Meals on Wheels or meals at their senior centers. Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals they distribute to seniors under the Older Americans Act through several avenues: first, through private donations; second, through the Department of Health and Human Services; and third, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture meal reimbursements. Let me explain why a funding increase for USDA's nutrition program for the elderly program is so important. Unlike funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, which is distributed to the States based on population, the USDA reimbursement to States is according to the amount of meals served at each senior center. The money they receive is actually based on meals served at the senior center. Our amendment is the best way to ensure that proper distribution of these funds are going to the centers where they prepare the meals. Why do we need more money? Why are we back for a second year in a row? Why does this amendment go above the President's request? As our chart indicates here, if we take a look at this chart, according to the Administration on Aging, 253 million meals were served in 2000, but the agency admits that this year the estimates will be 291 million. That is a 15 percent increase over last year. Even though we increased the funding last year for the meals, it is not going to be able to cover the dramatic rise in demand we see for senior meals. So the President's budget request, and the good work by the committee, it was good work, would be short of what we need just to cover our basic costs. What our amendment does, the Stupak-Boehlert amendment will allow this important funding to reflect the inflation and the increase in demand for these meals. We can help senior meal providers that so desperately need assistance in these times of high gas prices, high cost of meals, and the increasing number of seniors who have come to depend on these meals, even in these good economic times. I offer this amendment because of conversations I had last year with one such meal provider and about the plight of his agency. Bill Dubord and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in Escanaba, Michigan, in my northern Michigan District, told me that their agency every year is having a tougher and tougher time keeping its head above water to provide senior meals. I am sure all of us have heard similar stories as we travel about senior centers. According to a recent study, there are now an average of 85 people on waiting lists for home-delivered meal services, and are on the waiting list for an average of 2.6 months. The bottom line is, our senior meal providers need more money to provide the meals. Increased funding will give them more money to provide more meals. More meals means more senior health. It is health. It is really that simple. To pay for the amendment, as I have stated earlier, we have taken $10 million of a $187 million budget from the Department of Agriculture's building and facilities and rental payments. I fully recognize the importance of maintaining the Department's facilities. However, it is simply a necessity. We need to provide for our seniors. When my colleagues are casting their votes, I hope they will think of the seniors they have met back home and the senior providers they have spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support this Stupak-Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, in closing, to thank the committee and the subcommittee and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. I would like to once again point out that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wanted to be here but he was called away to the White House. He has been of great assistance to us, not only in drafting and working this amendment, but in addressing the concerns of seniors throughout this country. We thought the debate on this bill would go a little longer and we could do our amendment later when he got back from the White House. Unfortunately, he could not be here, but I wanted to recognize his efforts as well as that of the committee in helping us bring forth this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that today as we do the energy and water bill there will be an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and myself to ban the practice of drilling for gas and oil underneath the Great Lakes. Now, there is a proposal that Michigan is currently moving forward which would allow directional drilling under the Great Lakes. Why Michigan would do this to the 18 percent of the world's freshest waters found in the Great Lakes; 90, 95 percent of all of the fresh water in the United States is found at the Great Lakes, and it serves the homes of over 34 million people. Why we would threaten the vitality of the Great Lakes for a few drops of gas and oil, even during these energy needs, is unconscionable. If we take a look, the reserves are there. Even if we tap with 30 new wells, they propose 30 new wells, we would have enough oil for only 3 weeks, and we would have enough natural gas for 5 weeks. Only Michigan seeks to do this. The Governor of Ohio recently said, no oil and gas drilling. The Wisconsin State Senate has passed resolutions in the past saying no oil and gas drilling underneath our Great Lakes. So I am asking my colleagues today as we do the energy and water bill to please take a look at what we are doing. We have to conserve, we have to be resourceful, but let us not drill for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. Join this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this could be a great day for the Great Lakes and all of us who live in and around the Great Lakes. Since the 105th Congress 4 years ago, I have sought to ban the practice of drilling for oil and gas in and under our Great Lakes. Early on I was a lone voice among public officials on this issue. But I have been rewarded for my efforts, Mr. Chairman, with strong support from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and from Members inside and outside of the Great Lakes basin. The vote we will take tomorrow demonstrates how this issue has found its time and place in the House of Representatives. This is not a Florida situation. We have drilling in Michigan for oil and gas. But what our amendment says is there will not be any drilling for oil and gas on our shoreline. We should not be drilling in the world's greatest supply of fresh water. We should not have to be drilling on the shoreline of fresh water for 34 million people who live around the Great Lakes. Let us not jeopardize our Great Lakes. Let us not jeopardize their drinking water. Let us not drill for gas and oil under our Great Lakes. This amendment is important because our State of Michigan is moving forward to open new areas for drilling along the shores of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, the connecting waterway between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. Consider, Mr. Chairman, that 18 percent of the world's fresh water is found in the Great Lakes. Ninety-five percent of our Nation's fresh water is found in the Great Lakes. It is the home and workplace of 34 million people. The procedure that Michigan plans to authorize does not involve oil platforms located in the water of the Great Lakes themselves. Instead, the rigs would be located along the shore. Oil pockets under the lakes would be tapped by drilling at an angle from the shore rigs. This is a procedure known as directional drilling. Michigan law already permits State officials to move forward to lease bottomlands of the Great Lakes for drilling, without a new vote of the Michigan State House or State Senate. Michigan can move forward to lease bottomlands without permission from any other Great Lakes State. But as people inside and outside of Michigan have learned what Michigan is doing, Mr. Chairman, they have raised their voice in opposition. The Governor of Ohio has said he would never consider such a procedure. The Wisconsin Senate has said no to directional drilling. Members of the Michigan legislature themselves are waking up to the dangers that this practice presents to the Great Lakes. Although the Michigan Senate earlier this month voted to support new drilling, that language last night was eliminated from a House-Senate conference report and the language allowing directional drilling has been eliminated in Michigan. Here in Congress, a bipartisan group of Members from this body and the other body have brought forth bills to block any new drilling for oil and gas underneath the Great Lakes. But despite all of these actions, the State of Michigan can still move forward by administrative action and still plans to do so under the leadership of Governor Engler. Leasing of bottomlands of the Great Lakes for new oil and gas could take place within months under the current administration in Michigan. Michigan State officials have argued that the procedure is safe. A set of recommendations made up by a panel, a panel that was handpicked by the Michigan Governor to study the safety of directional drilling, have not been implemented and will not be implemented. They want to drill up in my district and they have never yet had a hearing in my district as required under the procedures as to whether or not you should drill in the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, we may be able to imagine the hazards of drilling, but it is harder to see the benefits. What is the economic trade-off here that you could argue in favor of drilling under our Great Lakes? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is small and short-term gain for Michigan's budget and profits for oil companies. But the public at large that faces the threat of drilling would see virtually no benefits. The proposed 30 or so new wells would yield only enough oil to meet the needs of Michigan residents for 3 weeks and enough natural gas for 5 weeks. Mr. Chairman, of all the places in the Nation where we might wish to sink oil wells, I believe we can argue that we would never choose the shoreline shared by the people of Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, and Buffalo among others. Let us block this procedure. I thank the U.S. Senators in the Michigan delegation and other Senators for their efforts. I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and others who stepped forward to cosponsor legislation to ban directional drilling each and every Congress that I have introduced it. A vote for this amendment tells the American public that we understand that the Great Lakes, one of the Nation's, one of the world's greatest resources, should and will be protected. Vote ``yes'' on the Bonior amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on May 15, 2001 I cast a vote in error. On Rollcall vote No. 109 I voted ``nay,'' when I should have voted ``yea.'' This vote, on whether Congress should expedite the construction of the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C., was a very important vote not only for me, but for all the World War II veterans in my district including my father and father-in-law, and in our country. Mr. Speaker, the mixup with my vote occurred because I thought we were voting on approving the previous day's minutes, commonly called the Journal Vote. This is usually the first vote of each day we are in session, and it is a vote I always vote ``nay'' upon because I never read the minutes and therefore am not in a position to approve them. However, the first vote on Tuesday, May 15 was the vote on the World War II Memorial. Again, I want to emphasize that I should have and would have voted yes because our World War II veterans, who are passing away at a rate of 1,000 a day, deserve no less. The National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts are responsible for approving the design and location of the memorial. Since planning began in 1995, the commissions have held 22 public meetings between them, and each has voted to approve the memorial no less than five times. I strongly believe construction should be completed quickly so as many Americans as possible from the generation Tom Brokaw calls ``the greatest'' will be alive to receive the national tribute that every American owes to these brave veterans. It is a shame that the planning of this memorial has taken longer than the actual war. It is time we honor these veterans with their own memorial.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the first vote was rollcall vote 109. It was on H.R. 1696, calling for the World War II memorial to be expeditiously built on the Mall in Washington, D.C. I arrived late for the vote, as I was in a meeting. I was under the impression the first vote was approving the journal; thus I voted no. Had I realized the vote was calling for the World War II memorial being expeditiously built on the Mall, I would have voted yes. I ask the Record reflect how I wish to have voted on the World War II memorial on rollcall vote 109, H.R. 1696.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution in honor of law enforcement officers who were killed or disabled in the line of duty. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for sponsoring this important legislation and to all of those who cosponsored it to make it a reality here today. Before coming to Congress in 1993, I served as a police officer for 12 years, both as a city police officer and as a Michigan State trooper. I have known personally too many officers who have been disabled or who have given their lives for the people they serve. Each of us today understand the importance of the House of Representatives in undertaking this resolution to honor law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. In this past year it has been 151 men and women. We do not forget those officers who died in previous years. Mr. Speaker, in my case, I specifically think back about the funerals and where I was honor guard for the funerals of Darrell Rantanen of the Gladstone Post back in about 1974, or Craig Scott of the Lansing Post who died in 1983. Those officers died doing their job just like law enforcement officials do day in, day out. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, probably each one of us can name an officer that was killed in the line of duty either in our home districts or even here in the Capitol, which happened in 1998 with the deaths of Capitol Police Officers Chestnut and Gibson. We do not forget the extreme sacrifice our Nation's law enforcement and public safety officers make to our communities and to the Nation every day. This legislation, as simple as it is, recognizes the very important value our government places on the work of the men and women who serve us each day. It is important that we take this step this week to show our respect and recognition for the jobs that police officers do every day, in every town, in every township, and every county in America. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in support of this resolution. It is the least we can do for those who work with us and work for us every day in this great Nation.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), my colleague and cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, for his hard work on this resolution and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) and all the members of the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this legislation to the point where we are today. Public safety officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve the people of this country. Yet, unbelievably enough, until 1997, survivor benefits for public safety officers who died in the line of duty were subject to Federal income taxes. The families, loved ones had done so much for this country, and their spouses and children sacrifice as well, yet the Federal Government would tax the benefits they so need. In 1997, as I attended the Police Officers Memorial, I was made aware of this injustice of taxing survivor benefits. Because of the quirk in the law, those law enforcement officers who were disabled, their benefits were not taxed; yet those who died, their benefits were taxed by the Federal Government. So I spoke then with the co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). We spoke with the President, got the support of the administration; we worked with members of the Committee on Ways and Means, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman); and we moved legislation to try to correct this injustice. The Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus wholeheartedly supported it. In 1997, Congress started to fix this serious problem. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 provided that the survivor benefits of officers killed on or after December 31, 1996, would not be subject to taxation. However, we had budget constraints back then; and we could not extend this legislation to everyone. But we did not give up. These were not minor omissions. The bill left numerous deserving families without assistance. I am pleased to report that through this legislation today, authored by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and my cochairman of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, who has worked so hard on this issue, we now have this bill for passage before the House of Representatives. Today, we close this unfair loophole by ensuring that the survivor benefits of all officers, regardless of the date they perished, will be exempt from taxes. We must provide for those families that have suffered the devastating loss of losing their loved ones to the call of duty. These families deserve our support when the unthinkable happens and their loved one is struck down. We have to look out for them, just as their husbands, their wives, their mothers, and fathers look out for us every day, risking their commitments to their families for the greater commitment they have made to this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Paul Tesanovich, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 110th Representative District, which is comprised of six counties--Gogebic, Ontonagon, Baraga, Iron, Houghton, and Keweenaw--in my congressional district. Paul was first elected to the House in 1994, and he has just concluded his service in the Michigan House because of the Michigan term limits law. This law was enacted at the will of the voters of Michigan, but I have to confess that in this case I believe the law has turned a dedicated public servant out of office. Mr. Speaker, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where Paul and I are from, is an area rich in natural wealth and scenic beauty. It is also an area that, because of its sheer size, offers a wealth of diverse social and political issues. Because its population is sparse, however, its representation in Lansing is meager in numbers. Spokesmen for this region, therefore, must stand taller and speak more eloquently than their downstate counterparts. Paul served on the important Appropriations Committee in the Michigan House, a position that allowed him an excellent platform to speak on behalf of his region. Paul brought an essential understanding of the region with him when he went to Lansing. He knew that the part of the state he represented has a rich and diverse heritage. In fact, one community, Calumet, once was so vital and prosperous that it came within one vote of becoming the capital of Michigan. Paul and I had the opportunity to work together on many major issues, perhaps the most important of which was trying to rebuild the region's economic vitality in the face of challenges like imports, which have devastated its copper mining industry. In trying to address the problems of unemployment arising from the closing of the White Pine Mine and related economic fallout from that closing, Paul and I have shared the knowledge that we have great resources at hand in this part of Michigan, which will be at the heart of any development effort. These resources include the excellent quality of the area's workforce and the strength of its nationally- renowned engineering school, Michigan Technological University. I wish Paul and his wife Julie and their three children the best in Paul's post-legislative career. He has my respect and friendship, and I will miss working with him.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words about a great accomplishment by a small university in my congressional district--one of the nation's newest universities, as a matter of fact. Finlandia University in Hancock, Michigan, up on the beautiful Keweenaw Peninsula, is less than a year old. That age is deceiving, however. Finlandia is actually a new name for Soumi College, a school founded by Finnish immigrants in 1896 to ensure their children would have a better life through advanced education. One of the qualities of Finnish culture is a respect for the quality of ``sisu,'' translated variously as persistence, determination, drive, or stamina. The Finlandia Lions, the university's basketball team, recently demonstrated the characteristic of sisu by capturing the National Small College Athletic Association national championship in basketball. The team entered the tourney with a 14-14 record and came up in the first round against St. Mary's College of Ave Maria University, an Orchard Lake, Mich., school. After defeating St. Mary's by a score of 76-50, Finlandia University next faced the tournament's No. I seed, Northwest Christian College from Eugene, Ore. In a comeback victory, 69-66, Finlandia won the right to meet Southern Virginia College of Buena Vista, Va., which it defeated 98 84 to take the title. The Finlandia Lions basketball team was led by second-year coach Art Van Damme and assistant coach Duane Snell. Nine Michigan students and one student from Finland make up the roster of the National Small College Athletic Association championship team. Team members are Nick Forgette and Jacob Polfus of Carney; Jeffrey Stiefel of Capac, Jeremy Suardina of Gwinn; John Abramson, Painesdale; Mark Nolan, Watton; Jon Paul Katona, Negaunee; Pete Flaska, Ishpeming; Bill Loeks, Iron Mountain; and Marcus Ylainen of Helsinki, Finland. Mr. Speaker, Finlandia University is the only private university in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and one of only 28 colleges and universities in the U.S. affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In its vision statement, Finlandia University says it is ``committed to offering liberal arts based, globally connected, international, ecologically sensitive, spiritually engaged and career focused baccalaureate and associate degree programs as well as community education opportunities.`` Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Finlandia is also offering its students an opportunity to cheer for one heck of a basketball team. I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in offering the warmest congratulations to Coach Van Damme and the Finlandia Lions for their success in capturing the NSCAA basketball crown.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the late Raymond W. ``Jake'' Engelhard, a former resident of my northern Michigan congressional district, who spent decades as a miner, a community servant, a local volunteer. Jake was also a union leader, who devoted many years to the labor movement, helping ensure a good quality of life for working men and women. Jake was born in Rosco, Minnesota and moved to Ishpeming, Michigan, in 1935. He worked as an iron ore miner for 43 years for the Inland Steel Corporation and was the first miner to join the CIO union in the Lake Superior District. As president of USWA Local 2099 for many years, Jake's effort helped to improve the quality of life for miners on the Marquette Iron Range. Jake was instrumental in waging a successful strike in 1946 that lasted 108 days. Contract demands were met as a result of that strike. Jake went through many strikes over the years, and he strived tirelessly to improve the wages and working conditions of his fellow workers. He retired in 1970. In addition to Jake's union activities, he was active in numerous community service and civic organizations. Jake also played on the Ishpeming city baseball team, later coaching the Ishpeming City and American Legion teams. Jake Engelhard was also a local businessman, the proprietor of the Coffee Pot in Ishpeming during the 1940s. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that a good deal of solidarity was served up to each patron along with their orders. There are many of us in Congress, who are concerned about the impact of world trade--and violations of world trade agreements--on our iron ore production back in Michigan. We fight this fight today with the assistance of administration officials and with the cooperation of varied segments of the steel industry. We fight for this industry, because we know it is vital to both the nation's health and the jobs of the men and women who work in the industry back home. Men like Jake Engelhard fought an earlier fight on behalf of the working men and women of the iron range, a battle that was vital during its time. But Jake's battles were different. It was the workers themselves with their limited resources, fighting with the weapons of belief in the rightness of their cause and the strength of their united effort. I look for encouragement and inspiration in those old struggles; I am reminded that battles may not be won in a week, a month, a year or perhaps many years. Our men and women who stood on the picket line to improve the lives of families have much to teach us about working on behalf of others. Jake will be honored Saturday, April 7, 2001, with induction into the U.P. Labor Hall of Fame at a banquet in Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan. It is recognition long due.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Millersburg, a small community in my congressional district, the 1st District of Michigan. On Labor Day this year the people of Millersburg will celebrate the centennial of their village. The history of their community is rich and complex, a story of growth and decline and several major changes in the core industry of the community. Like other centennials, however, this date marks more than a chronology of events. It is a history of family unity and old-fashioned values, and the centennial is a wish and prayer for the future of this small village, a hope that it will endure another 100 years. Village president Bruce Doran and his wife Jo are assembling a book on the community as a reference for this historic event. Their account of the community's beginning tells how on the morning of September 23, 1897, a party of land owners and railway men assembled near the spot where a primitive highway crossed the Ocqueoc River in Presque Isle County, Michigan, for the purpose of laying out a new town. Except for the openings along the river and along the highway, the unbroken forest extended for miles on every side. The line of the D&M Railroad was blazed on the trees, and in a few days the noise of railway trains would be heard for the first time in this primeval forest. Many towns have been laid out like this in Michigan, Mr. Speaker, but, according to the Dorans' research, Millersburg was probably one of the last Michigan communities deliberately planned in the forest. By noon the actual site was selected, and a gang of 35 choppers went to work. Axes flashed, and the mighty hemlocks, the giant elms, the majestic maples and the lofty basswoods were laid low, giving birth to the town of Millersburg. The community took its name from Mr. Charles R. Miller of Adrian, Michigan, president of the commercial Savings Bank there. Mr. Miller had traveled through the area on business and had become interested in this area of the state through business contacts. He watched the progress of the D&M Railroad with keen interest and decided to purchase a tract of land. With several logging branches planned, it was expected that the town of Millersburg would be the hub of activity. In 1901 Millersburg became incorporated as a village. It grew and developed, with a variety of important local businesses, including four sawmills, one stave mill, five general stores and a newspaper. But a town built in the forest and dependent on the forest can also be threatened by the forest. The decline of Millersburg as a lumbering town began with fires that swept the greater part of Presque Isle County in October 1908, inflicting a tremendous amount of damage. One fire threatened the village at the sawmills, and every available man fought to keep it from entering the town. Their efforts were rewarded, and the town was saved. But thousands of acres of timber were lost. By 1911 the population had dwindled to 850 from a high of more than 1,000, and in July a fire burned the community's business section, the schoolhouse, the post office and numerous homes. Two sawmills and 26 boxcars were destroyed. The business section was never rebuilt and many of the merchants and dealers, realizing that the era of large-scale lumbering was over, chose to leave to try their fortunes elsewhere. By 1916 the town's population leveled off at 300, a figure which has remained relatively unchanged to this day. Agriculture became the chief industry in the township until the 1950s, when many of the farmers where forced out of business due to rising prices. Today tourism is becoming the mainstay of the community, marking the community's willingness to adapt to new economic opportunities. Many people have come to the area to enjoy its lakes, streams and snowmobile trails. One can look back over the community's history, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledge that, yes, the town once had more local industry and a greater population. But one can also say that Millersburg, strengthened by its trails by fire, is as vigorous and forward-looking a community today as it once was, ready to utilize its local assets for the advancement of its citizens. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the people of Millersburg and wishing them great joy in their celebration of 100 years as a community.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mike Prusi, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 109th Representative District, which is made up of two counties, Marquette and Alger, in my congressional district. Mike was first elected to the House in a special election in May 1995, following the death of one of Michigan's great legislators and great spokesman for northern Michigan, Dominic J. Jacobetti. Mike has just concluded his service in the Michigan House because of the Michigan term limits law. This law was enacted at the will of the voters of Michigan, but I have to confess that in this case I believe the law has turned an excellent public servant out of office. Mr. Speaker, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where Mike and I are from, is an area rich in natural wealth and scenic beauty. It is also an area that, because of its sheer size, offers a wealth of diverse social and political issues. Because its population is sparse, however, its representation in Lansing is meager in numbers. Spokesmen for this region must stand taller and speak more eloquently than their downstate counterparts. Mike served on the important Appropriations Committee in the Michigan House and, like Dominic J. Jacobetti before him, was an outstanding spokesman for the region. Mike brought a profound understanding of the region with him when he went to Lansing. He was born in his district, was schooled there, and became an iron mine worker, eventually becoming president of a Steelworkers local. Like the red dust that coats the clothing of miners, Mike carried the innate strength, pride and independence of Upper Michigan residents to his job as a state representative. There have been many important issues affording us an opportunity to work together. The round of military base closures under the BRAC Commission in the early 1990s affected a base in the Upper Peninsula, in the heart of what would become Mike's district. Fighting to revive this economic heart of the Upper Peninsula has been one of our major efforts and concerns. Today, we face the problem of illegal imports of steel--raw materials and finished projects--which have jeopardized the health of the U.S. steel industry. These illegally dumped products affect the entire industry, beginning with the very mines where Mike has worked. We are again joined in an important economic battle, this time to protect jobs and our vital national steel industry, from mining to final rolling of finished steel. I wish Mike and his wife Sandra the best in his post-legislative career. He has my deep respect and friendship. The people of Michigan were well-served by Mike Prusi. They will miss him. I will miss him.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote No. 74, the motion to recommit, because I was stuck in elevator number 7A over in the Rayburn building. Had I been here, I would like to inform the House I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Stated against:

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 with my colleagues Asa Hutchinson and Bobby Scott. I also want to commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Sessions for introducing this legislation in the Senate, and Lee Guelff and the Fraternal Order of Police on their hard work in moving this legislation forward. Our bill is an important stride for law enforcement: it takes body armor out of the hands of criminals and gives law enforcement greater access to it. This bill means a great deal to me. I have introduced similar legislation in the House for several years, and have been part of the ongoing effort to pass this bill. It is also rewarding that this year we have a bipartisan team in both the House and the Senate working to pass bill that is so important to our nation's law enforcement. Special thanks are certainly owed to Lee Guelff, who has worked tirelessly on this issue since his brother was tragically killed by a shooter wearing body armor and a Kevlar helmet. Through his efforts, and that of countless police officers across the country, individual states are passing similar pieces of legislation. In fact, I am pleased to say that last year my own state of Michigan passed legislation banning the ownership or usage of body armor by convicted felons, and I commend the Michigan legislature for its action. Law enforcement officers all over the country need protection from criminals wearing body armor. These offenders are impervious to the bullets of the police officers trying to stop them, yet these very same police officers incredibly often lack funds for their own body armor. You may all recall the chilling video of a shootout at a bank robbery in California some years ago, where the perpetrators could not be brought down because they were wearing body armor. Eleven police officers and six civilians were injured in that 20 minute gunfight with the Los Angeles Police Department. This is a threat to law enforcement, and this bill is needed. We cannot allow criminals to have an advantage over the men and women that put their lives on the line every day to protect society. The days of the Wild West are over, and gunfights have no place in our society. Criminals should not be able to face police without fear because they are protected by body armor, able to shoot at will. Our bill enhances the penalties for crimes committed while wearing body armor, outlaws the possession of body armor by convicted felons and promotes the donation of surplus body armor to police. These measures will take away the criminals' advantage and return the power to the people that deserve it, our nation's law enforcement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passing this important legislation this year.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not able to vote on this issue because of a prior family commitment. With all that has happened to my family in the past nine months, this was a commitment I vowed to keep! In our current times of economic surplus, and in light of Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's recent statements, I am in favor of tax cuts and believe that we need to use this opportunity to return money to hard-working Americans. Furthermore, with some signs of an economic slowdown, I hope that we can examine ways that a tax cut can act quickly to boost the economy. However, I cannot support President Bush's tax cut plan; it is simply too expensive and too speculative, will jeopardize vital programs such as Social Security and Medicare and will prevent us from taking aggressive action to reduce our nation's outstanding debt. President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut package will actually cost more than $2 trillion when other hidden costs are taken into account, such as the costs of making it retroactive and additional interest costs of the national debt. This is simply too expensive. It leaves no room to ensure the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare, to reduce the debt and to account for future budgetary needs, such as our children's education or a prescription drug benefit for our nation's seniors. I believe we must plan responsibly. Our first priorities must be to use the surpluses to protect Social Security and Medicare and pay down our national debt. In addition, we must leave room for the budgetary needs that inevitably occur, be they unforeseen needs for emergency relief, or because of an increase contained in the budget that President Bush has indicated he will propose. It is important to note that while Republicans in the House are rushing to vote on this issue, the Senate has indicated that it will hold off on any tax cut votes until the President's full budget is set forth. As any business or family would do, Congress needs to know its budget before determining how much it can afford to spend on a tax cut. The President has not yet offered Congress a complete budget to review. When he does so, we can rationally study this issue. Furthermore, the current projected surplus is just that, a projection, and we cannot recklessly spend it, even with the best intentions. I would not plan my own family's budget that way, and I will certainly not invest the nation's future that way. As Chairman Greenspan said, ``We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.'' With responsible planning, I believe that we can promote the priorities of paying down the national debt, protecting our seniors' retirement and health security, and enacting tax cuts. I want to work in a bi-partisan manner with the president and members of both parties on Capitol Hill to pass a sensible budget that includes tax relief for America's working families. Unfortunately, this is not the approach being taken by the President and the Republican leadership; therefore, I oppose this package.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Law Enforcement Officers' Health Act to encourage all states to adopt a practice that has served Michigan's citizens and law enforcement officers well. If a law enforcement officer in Michigan develops heart disease or a lung disorder, he or she is entitled to the presumption for the purposes of the workers' compensation system that the illness is an occupational disease. This recognition of the stressful nature of law enforcement work is also reflected in the workers' compensation systems of thirteen other states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia). There are several reasons for states to grant this presumption to law enforcement officers who suffer from heart or lung problems. With such a policy, states and municipalities are spared the administrative burden and cost of extended hearings and proceedings to determine whether or not such illnesses and disabilities are work related. In addition to the expense, these proceedings frequently become adversarial, unnecessarily creating tension between the employer and employee and ultimately affecting the delivery of public safety services. Finally--and perhaps most importantly to the law enforcement officer involved--the administrative process delays the treatments for which he or she will eventually be qualified. Since heart diseases and lung disorders are almost always deemed to be occupational diseases as a result of the administrative process, the proceedings simply waste time and money. The Law Enforcement Officers' Health Act does not impose a new federal mandate on states or otherwise interfere with states' rights. Instead, it would require states to adopt this policy in order to receive the full amount for which it is eligible under the Justice Department's Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The award will be reduced by 10 percent if the state fails to adopt this presumption. A similar reduction with regard to a state's policy on health benefits for officers injured on the job has been in the law for several years. The provisions of this legislation will not become effective until eighteen months after enactment so that an affected state will have adequate time to amend its laws or modify its regulations. I have recently had the pleasure of working with the leadership of the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, in developing this legislation to ensure that all law enforcement officers receive the same health protections that their fellow officers in my state of Michigan enjoy. I particularly want to recognize Sam Cabral, International President, and Dennis Slocumb, Executive Vice President, for their dedication to this cause. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation.