Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Wu-Hooley amendment which reduces forest timber sales management by $30 million. Forest products are my district's main industry and have a great financial, environmental, cultural, historical and recreational impact on my constituents. My constituents depend upon a strong, vibrant national forest. We have been good stewards of our land and its natural resources. The forests depend upon us for proper management, for nurturing and protection. We cannot afford a reduction in the timber sales program. I have heard it said here tonight we are only going to cut 23 or 30 million out of a $220 million timber sales account. That is greater than a 10-percent cut. This amendment would upset the balanced environmental program in the current Interior bill. The Interior bill eliminates the timber purchaser road credits. It provides only decreased funding for timber management and already increases the wildlife account by $3 million. Our national forests are in a health crisis. The timber program has already been reduced by 70 percent since 1991. Further reductions are terrible public policy. Where do we go if we stop cutting and continue the reductions in timber sales on Federal forests? We put more pressure on State and private forests to make up for the lost timber. We do great environmental degradation to those lands, greater erosion of water quality. Our national forest, as I said, are in a health crisis. More than 40 million acres of the national forests are at high risk for catastrophic fires due to accumulation of dead and dying trees. An additional 26 million acres are at risk from insect and disease. Forests in my district have suffered several fires in the last 2 years. Recently, 6 weeks ago, we had a couple of major fires costing more than $2 million to fight, destroying thousands of acres of timber, cottages, and camps. Careful removal of many of the trees is one of the most efficient, economical and least environmentally impacting management tools available to us to reduce the risk to our national forests and protect adjacent private and State land. Most Forest Service timber sales are designed to help attain other stewardship objectives. Timber sales are often the most effective method, both ecologically and economically, of achieving desired vegetative management objectives such as thinning dense forest stands or to restore historical ecological conditions, reducing excessive forest fuels, and creating desired wildlife habitat. Timber sales provide many benefits beyond the revenues earned. From an ecological perspective, timber sales improve forest ecosystem health, reduce the risk and intensity of catastrophic fire, and improve water quality. From an economic point of view, they provide job opportunities, generate individual and business income, and produce incremental tax receipts that various levels of government collect. We have heard tonight that the home builders would oppose this amendment. Well, the Western Council of Industry Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America also oppose the Wu- Hooley amendment. If I may, I would just like to quote from their language on why they are opposed to this amendment. Labor says, ``Legislative efforts to reduce funding for forest management programs seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members and tens of thousands of forest product workers nationwide. Job loss within our industry has been severe as the timber sale program has been reduced by almost 70 percent since the early 1990s. More than 80,000 men and women have lost their jobs due to this decline and further cutbacks in these important programs will only add to the unemployment.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the timber sale program and reject the Wu-Hooley amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, I would not say the Secretary is trying to do an end run around IGRA. We had the gentleman from Wisconsin come here and say the Secretary denied the Native American tribes in Wisconsin from taking over the dog track down off U.S. 141 down there. They denied it. There the Secretary did not agree with the Native Americans and denied it. Now, he is being investigated for denying it. I mean, if Florida and Alabama have difficulties, I do not want to change law to accommodate just two States when it is working well in 48 other States. I would tell Florida and Alabama, go back and work it out. Whatever concerns you have in Florida and Alabama can be addressed if the parties want to. But if one side is not going to negotiate, there has to be someone other than just running to court all the time. That is where I think the Secretary should be and that is what it currently gives him and I think that is a proper use of authority, because the Federal Government is the only one that can really negotiate with these tribes on impasses because of sovereignty that must be respective of all Native American tribes.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) for their hard work and diligence on this issue. I would like to note that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of Subcommittee on Interior who is running this bill here today, has been a friend of the PILT program. While it is true this appropriations bill is flat funded, it requires difficult choices between many worthwhile projects and many worthwhile programs. But our amendment here, this amendment I am pleased to cosponsor with my friends, is really an amendment to help one of our local units of government, the local folks all across this Nation. The gentleman is right, we have to make priorities. Today I am going to stand with local units of government and ask for an increase in the PILT spending. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this amendment, it would only restore desperately needed funding to the PILT program. Each year, thousands of counties across this Nation lose out on millions of dollars of property tax revenue simply because the Federal Government owns the land. In my district, the Federal Government owns large portions of land. For example, approximately 70 percent of the land in Gogebic County is in the Ottawa National Forest and owned by the Federal government. Since the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own land, the PILT program was established to compensate counties for land the Federal government owns. Since its adoption in 1976, however, the PILT program has neither kept pace with its authorized funding levels nor with the true costs of providing services in support of Federal lands. In fact, the PILT program is currently funded at less than half its authorized level. Rural counties rely on PILT payments to provide essential services such as education, law enforcement, emergency fire and medical, search and rescue, solid waste management, road maintenance, and other health and human services. Without adequate funding for this program, rural counties struggle to provide these vital services. Mr. Chairman, if the Federal government was required to pay taxes on the property it owned like any other individual or corporation, it would have been delinquent a long time ago for failure to pay taxes. The Federal government owned so much land in some of these counties, some school districts in my congressional district cannot even bond for school improvements, for school repairs or to build new schools because there is not a large enough tax base in the county for the bond marketers to loan them the money. So this decision and the decision we will make here tonight goes a long way in not only trying to bring some equity into the PILT program but the effects are much greater than just simply government paying its share of taxes. It is allowing communities to exist, to make improvements, and to have an equitable economic base to exist. The Federal government has decided that it is in the best interest of the Nation to own and protect certain lands. I do not think anyone would argue with that. What we are arguing here tonight, what our amendment says, is that we must not penalize our local communities because they have the good fortune to have the Federal government have jurisdiction over land within their counties. It is irresponsible for the Federal government to take these lands off the tax roll and then not provide just compensation. Again, since 1976, the value of that program has shrunk by more than 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, this request is only for a small increase in the PILT program, but its impact and importance on the rural counties is large. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of equity by voting in favor of this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The banking modernization bill could be a good bill, but I oppose the selling out of your and my personal privacy. I oppose compromising my privacy. Democrats oppose the selling of the privacy of all Americans. All Democratic amendments on privacy have been rejected. And why? Let us take a look at the Los Angeles Times editorial dated today, ``No Prescription for Privacy,'' and I quote: ``The House must defeat legislation that would allow health insurers to sell medical records to other insurers without the consent or even knowledge of the patients. ``Legislators usually become angry and defensive when ulterior motives are ascribed to legislation. But if voters are to believe that this measure is unrelated to the fact that the insurance industry was the single largest soft-money donor to Republicans in 1997-98, then let them explain how this anti-consumer amendment benefits those voters.'' Folks, they are selling you out. They are selling your privacy, not just your financial privacy but now your medical privacy. When I go to the bank, when I buy insurance, I provide information which is personal, private. But this bill allows personal, private medical, financial information. Every check I ever wrote, every medical decision I ever made, they are going to sell it, and they are going to sell it to the telemarketers, without my knowledge and without my consent. I know the Republicans have said they will fix it later with comprehensive privacy legislation. Later, later. But once they sell the information, once it is out in the world, once it is out in this electronic world we live in, they are going to pass a law then and say you cannot have it. Are they going to recall it? Are they going to tell every person, every business to recall the information? Plus once it is paid for, you think businesses are not going to make copies and continue to hold it? Your privacy has been violated. Oh, they will stop all right. Will they? Will they? Will they let their largest single soft-money contributor to the GOP, the insurance industry, call it back? They will not.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call your attention and that of my House colleagues to an important historical milestone in my northern Michigan congressional district. This month the City of Mackinac Island, a unique blend of state park and local municipality and a special mix of important archaeological sites and impressive tourist attractions, celebrates its centennial. Tonight the city council of Mackinac Island will both formally acknowledge this milestone and honor a remarkable public servant, island resident Margaret M. Doud, who has served as mayor for 25 of the city's 100-year history. The community that Margaret Doud both leads and serves is not just unique in my 1st Congressional District. It is an important national resource with a rich history as a spiritual home and meeting place of Native American tribes, a way-station in the European exploration of the Upper Midwest, an important military site during America's two wars with England, a resource center for fur and fish trade, and now a temperate haven for tourists in the heat of summer. Mackinac Island is the home of memorable fudge and the majestic Grand Hotel. It is circled and criss-crossed by rural lanes that in summer are used by residents and visitors on foot, bicycle, or horse and buggy--but nor cars, not since motorized vehicles were banned in 1898. It has served as summer home for Michigan's governor, the site of numerous business and political conferences, and the backdrop for movie cameras in the romantic Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour movie, Somewhere in Time. For the everyday cameras of tourists, the island's backdrop includes the magnificent span of the Mackinac Bridge. The island is a fair destination for sailors who race up Lake Michigan in the Chicago-to-Mackinac race and up Lake Huron in the Port Huron-to- Mackinac event. The island takes its name from the Native American word ``Michilimackinac,'' which means ``Land of the Giant Turtle,'' a reference to the island's humped shape, like a turtle rising from the northern end of the Lake Huron. In Indian lore, the island was the first land to appear above water after the Great Flood, and a place of origin for native peoples. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that while it's true Margaret Doud may serve as mayor over a small population of about 500 permanent residents, she also guides a community that must constantly address a host of intensely conflicting land use demands. The effort to accommodate tourists from all over the world must be balanced against limited resources and the need to protect its unique historic and archaeological sites. This means that each question of housing for seasonal workers, for additional accommodations and for marina expansion is posed against the question of protecting what is truly a national treasure. Mayor Doud has served the island well in addressing these questions, Mr. Speaker. I ask my House colleagues to join me in recognizing her efforts and offering our sincerest appreciation for her dedication and efforts in guiding this island community into the next millennium. Under Margaret's guidance, and with the advice and assistance of the island's city council, I know the island is well prepared for its next 100 years.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call your attention to the 100th birthday of Mass City, a small community in the western part of the Upper Peninsula in Michigan's 1st Congressional District. Although it is a small dot on the map, like many Midwest communities Mass City has its own rich and unique history. On this centennial occasion, I'd like to share a few highlights of that history with my House colleagues. As a local writer noted, it was the great continental glaciers 10,000 years ago that gave final shape to the topography of northern Michigan, but it was geologic activity hundreds of millions of years earlier that planted in the area rich deposits of copper. This ore would sustain a long copper culture among the earliest settlers in the region, and it would serve as one of the powerful attractions for later European settlers. Timber was the second attraction, and land for agriculture was the third, especially for many Finnish immigrants who settled in the area in the early 1900s. Mass City was born in 1899 in this burst of economic activity, but today's guardians of local lore are left with the mystery of the community's name. Is it an abbreviation for ``Massachusetts City,'' since five members of the board of directors of the Mass Consolidated Mining Company were from that state? Maybe it was named for the Mass Mine, discovered by Noel Johnson, an early African-American settler in the area. The prevailing sentiment, however, is that the name comes from the mass copper in the surrounding hills. As late as the 1990s, chunks of native copper weighing more than a ton were found in the community's Caledonia Mine. The boom days of mining are gone now, Mr. Speaker, and only a few farms are still active. Lumbering is still important to the regional economy, but it takes a back seat to what I believe is the region's greatest asset--its remarkable quality of life. A belief in the value of hard work and the importance of family are reinforced by the beauty of the natural surroundings. This is the North Woods, where crisp, star-filled winter nights or summer breezes rustling the pines are gentle reminders of the Presence of the Almighty. Mass City will hold its reunion and centennial celebration July 2-4. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the real celebration of this region will continue as long as there are men and women living there who continue to add to its history and treasure its heritage and values.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call your attention to the small community of Northport, a unique and rustic village on the beautiful Leelanau Peninsula in northwestern Lower Michigan. This richly diverse community, which draws its heritage from Native Americans and many other cultures, is currently celebrating its 150th birthday with a schedule of festivities that will last more than a month. The celebration began on June 11 with a re-enactment of the event that would lead to the creation of the village, the 1849 landing of Rev. George and Arvilla Smith, accompanied by Chief Peter Wakazoo and more than 40 families, most of them Native American. As local lore relates, the town experienced a population boom in the mid-1800s after Deacon Joseph Dame wrote to the New York Tribune, extolling the benefits of the area. By 1859, according to the Sesquicentennial brochure, ``Northport was the largest community in northwest Michigan, with 400 residents, two wharfs, five general stores, three hotels, several saloons, a sawmill and the first organized school district in Leelanau County.'' As part of the festivities, residents and visitors can take a walking tour of the community, viewing the homes of early settlers whose lives were intertwined with Northport's 15 decades of history. Typical of such homes is that of the Eli Bordeaux family, which was on its way to Frankfort, Mich., by boat in 1867 when a storm forced them to take shelter in the Northport Harbor. As the guide books relate, family members liked what they saw and decided to stay. Eli, a farmer, built the home, which remains today. This story and this home, Mr. Speaker, are just a small part of the rich heritage of the community represented in this walking tour. Many other events, including an original drama, a powwow presented by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and an ongoing exhibit of community artifacts in a rehabilitated civic building are just part of the many weeks' activities. When communities like Northport hold such celebrations, they certainly have in mind a goal of promoting the event to attract visitors, many of them perhaps visiting for the first time. Northport's events, however, are a true celebration for the residents themselves of a rich and unique heritage on a peninsula whose name means ``delight of life.'' The name reflects not only the picturesque community and the surrounding area, but also the wonderfully moderated temperatures caused by the surrounding water. In fact, despite its location more than halfway to the North Pole, both tourism and fruit production are vital parts of the area's economy. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in congratulating this special community in my district, the 1st Congressional District of Michigan, and in wishing its residents joy in their celebration and a future that continues rich in those intangibles that have created its wonderful quality of life.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to residents of the Charter Township of Kinross, who are celebrating their centennial with a spirit of optimism. The celebration and the optimism of this northern Michigan community is especially inspiring, Mr. Speaker, because Kinross Township continues to struggle economically to recover from the Air Force decision to turn out the lights and turn the key on Kincheloe Air Force Base in September 1977. This military departure, which occurred far before the formal base closure program of the early 1990s, left a shell of an economy, a ghost of a community, and infrastructure and pollution problems that still must be dealt with today. Kinross Township is working hard on its own recovery. The Centennial Ceremonies are an affirmation of that effort and a rededication to its fulfillment. The Centennial lets many township residents look back to their roots in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where their ancestors settled as lumbermen and farmers after the railroad opened up the territory. Quilting has knit the community together for generations, and a special community quilt and a community blanket highlighting the area's history are among the Centennial activities. The proximity of the Soo Locks guaranteed a U.S. military presence somewhere near Sault Ste. Marie to guard this vital facility. The locks were an essential link between the Great Lakes of Superior and Huron in bringing Great Plains wheat and iron ore from Minnesota and northern Michigan to lower Midwest ports and steel mills. The airport at Kinross was designated in June 1941, eventually growing to become a Strategic Air Command base and serving as home to B-52H bombers and KC-135 tankers. The base was named Kincheloe for Air Force Capt. Ivan C. Kincheloe Jr., a Michigan native, Korean War ace, and test pilot killed in an accident over the Mojave Desert in 1956. An impact study prepared by the Air Force at the time of the closing noted Kincheloe was a $55 million per year operation, with a significant portion of that funding spent in the local area. The impact of the loss of this income on the businesses and permanent residents of this largely rural area can only be imagined. I have worked closely with community officials in Kinross, Mr. Speaker. Unlike our most recent base closing, which have included environmental cleanup of military sites before their turnover to civilian ownership and operation, and which have included large infusions of economic aid, the recovery of Kinross has been to a large extent a bootstrap effort. We have had some joint successes, such as the designation of the former base as the nation's first rural site to be designated a ``brownfield,'' and we have worked to obtain funding for the former airport, now Chippewa County International Airport. It should be noted that, although Kinross already had its name in the 1880s and had a post office for a short time in 1898, it was not an established township until a Mr. Albert Curtis, a man with vision and foresight, went to the Chippewa County Board of Supervisors in Sault Ste. Marie with a request to create a township. His proposal rejected, Mr. Curtis caught a train for Lansing, where he caught the state legislature in session and made the same request. Successful in this effort, he returned to Kinross, where he was elected supervisor in the township's first election, April 3, 1899. Mr. Curtis was to hold that office on and off for 24 of the next 36 years, part of his remarkable record of service to his community. I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Charter Township of Kinross will one day view the closing of the air base as merely another step, albeit a painful one at the time, in the unique history of this area. The recent development of extensive snowmobile trails, five Michigan Corrections Department facilities and thriving area businesses signal a resurgence. Like the community quilts, the essential fabric of Kinross Township remains intact, and new elements continue to be woven into the area's rich history. Mr. Speaker, I invite my House colleagues to join me in wishing the best for the people of Kinross Township on the occasion of their centennial.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, after the third time, I appreciate recognizing the fact that I had a parliamentary inquiry. I would ask that the House be given an additional 5 minutes on each side.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is the point. If everyone has their own rating system, why can we not put a label so it is consistent, whether it is NBC, CBS, ABC, FX, video games, whatever? Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. STUPAK. Oh, really? They do not.

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary has raised a couple of issues I would like to respond to. Government is already into labeling. This is a label amendment. Government is into labeling. Let me explain. Let us say this is video. Let us say this is music. Let us say this is TV. Let us say this is movies. We have four different packages here and government labels every one of these packages. Everything we consume physically, government labels. On the back of every one of these packages is nutritional facts. It came from the FDA. Every one of them. What we are saying is whether you are a movie, you are going to have a uniform, consistent standard label so we as consumers, before we consume it, we know what it is. Every one of them, nutritional facts. Every one of them, nutritional facts. Every one of them, nutritional facts. That is what we are asking the entertainment industry to do. It is suggested that we should wait. For over 30 years the movie industry has been putting forth ratings. They are never the same. They constantly change. There is no enforcement. We have been waiting for over 30 years. Why 30 years ago did they bring up a rating system? Because study after study shows violence, constantly depicted, starting at age 8 makes the impression upon people that it is okay to do what you are seeing on television or what you are listening to in music or what you are seeing in the interactive video games, whatever it may be. In fact, this amendment amends government's Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. That is what we are asking to do in this bill. Government has been labeling and telling us what to do. What we are asking for, music, video, interactive, television, give us the same, consistent, uniform label. And we let industry determine it. For the first 6 months industry will determine it. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) points out, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has a right to oversee it. So it is uniform, it is consistent. Yes, we put financial penalties in there if they do not do it, if the producers and distributors do not do it. Why? Because we have been waiting over 30 years. Madam Chairman, today I am offering my amendment with the gentleman from Tennessee to establish a standardized product, to put a violence labeling system for interactive video games, video programs, motion pictures and music. This is to inform and have a uniform and consistent labeling system which will be a valuable tool before I purchase a video game or music for my sons or let them go to a movie. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his hard work on this. It is fair to say we must thank in the other body Senators Lieberman and McCain for their tireless effort in this same area. What we are saying here, we require that the manufacturers of products, whatever they are, put forth a uniform label which tells us what is the nature of the movie, or the music, what is the context, what is the intensity, what is the intensity of the violent content and the age appropriateness for these products. It requires industry to work together, all of them, music, video games, videos, television, to work together to develop a standardized product. And if they cannot, the FTC is going to do it for them. The amendment bans domestic sale and commercial distribution of unlabeled products after a year. There are already several different rating systems. Just like these packages, each one is packaged differently. That is what the current ratings system is in this country. We say let us put a uniform label, nutrition facts, nutrition for our mind and for our reviewing. That is what we are asking for, create a uniform and consistent labeling system so every parent and every consumer in this country can identify the product's content. As I indicated, we have the nutritional labels so a consumer understands what is contained in a product he is about to consume. Why should parents and consumers of video games, movies, television and music not know what is the product before they buy them? We need to provide product information to parents and consumers about the violent content of these products to increase our ability to make informed decisions before we give the products to our children. Ultimately, parents have the responsibility to determine what is suitable for their children, to play on their VCR or what game to play, what to listen to and what to watch. However in this increasingly digital age, parents need to be more informed to make educated decisions and let us make it simple, so they know what it is through this labeling, a uniform, consistent label, not ratings but label throughout all of industry so we do not have to go to the music CD and look at one thing and try to figure out what it says and go to the video, and see something else in interactive video games. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Wamp-Stupak amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Request to Modify Amendment NO. 35 Offered by Mr. Wamp

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in response to the last speaker, I just want to say if it worked so well in television, why is not NBC doing the same system? They are not.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for yielding me this time. I would like to bring up two points. We offered an amendment to take care of the V-chip technology, the bogus argument that is being made. Our amendment said it would be absolutely clear that there can be no interoperability requirement with the V-chip requirement. In other words, we want to work with the V-chip and by standardizing the label it will be easier. We offered the amendment. They objected because it is the only ground they could object on the value of our amendment and what we are doing here today. This is not a rating argument. So then the other argument they brought up is, well, it is a first amendment right. The courts have constantly ruled, and we checked with CRS, although not binding they certainly give us legal guidance and they said there is a compelling State interest to protect the welfare of children. Government has that right to protect children when there is a compelling state interest. Much like tobacco, much like alcohol, it extends to commercial media products. That is why this is not unconstitutional. That is why it is not in violation of the first amendment. It will not violate the V-chip. Those are bogus arguments. We had the amendments to correct those concerns. They refused to allow us to offer it.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, as to juvenile justice, at one time we did have a bipartisan plan between Democrats and Republicans. Those bills did not contain any gun provisions. If we put back the bipartisan plan, we will go back to putting Cops on the Beat, we will authorize funds for school resource officers, school safety programs, and we will authorize after- school programs. Unfortunately, tonight and in the last few days we got away from the proposals, and we are back to trying 13-year-olds as adults. We are back to housing kids with adult criminals and imposing new mandatory minimums and death penalties. It is great to get tough on juveniles. As a cop, I know they do not work. We have to get to the root of the problem. Let us get back to the programs that bring some sanity back to the homes, the communities, and our schools. We do not need all kinds of gun provisions to do that. I ask the Members, I implore them, to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, then let me try 30 seconds, an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I am a former police officer, I am a member of the NRA, and I am a lifelong gun owner. My wife and my two sons own guns. We, Mr. Chairman, are responsible gun owners who have taken guns safety courses and educated our children about how to operate and respect firearms. The McCarthy amendment is not gun control. It does not take away any guns, and it does not prohibit law-abiding individuals from purchasing guns. The McCarthy amendment is a gun safety provision which continues the instant check system before one purchases a gun. McCarthy says that if one wants to purchase a gun, we all follow the same rules. We are all subject to the same instant background check. The McCarthy amendment says, whether I purchase my gun at K-Mart or at the weekend gun show, I must be treated the same. I must follow the same instant check system. No exceptions, no excuses, no special treatment for people who purchase guns at gun shows. The McCarthy amendment does not take away any rights. It does not prevent the sale of any guns. It only requires that we all play by the same rules. Earlier tonight I offered an amendment in the motion to recommit on the juvenile justice bill that did not contain any gun provisions. I am not interested in, and I will not vote to take away your guns. I will not try to control your guns. I want to make sure that every gun purchaser is treated the same, and that is why I am going to vote for the McCarthy amendment. I will vote to make sure that all prospective gun purchasers must follow the same instant check system. No exceptions, no excuses, no special treatment. With so many gun owners and hunters in my district, the last vote and this vote are very tough votes for me politically. But I say to my colleagues, this is the right vote. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Vote for the McCarthy amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my amendment to create new school violence hotlines. Both the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) and I have been working on this important amendment to help our communities prevent acts of violence at schools. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for his efforts and his hard work on this and urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Our amendment allows States to create and operate confidential, toll free, telephone hotlines that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, in order to provide students, parents, school officials and others the opportunity to report specific threats of imminent school violence to appropriate State and law enforcement entities. Our amendment also ensures that the States properly train people to answer and respond to telephone calls and assist States in the acquisition of technology to administer the hotlines. Mr. Chairman, hotlines will provide parents and students an important tool in our effort to reduce school violence. As chair of the Democratic Crime and Drug Task Force, we have met over the last year with school officials and they have detailed to us how these hotlines are particularly valuable because they allow students to report anonymously, avoiding much of the peer pressure that so often affects their behavior. No kid wants to be considered a snitch in their school and many times potential acts of violence go unreported because of the pressure students feel from their peers. Additionally and most importantly, students often fail to report potential violence because of fear that the weapons or the violence that they are to report may be used against them if they are found out to be the one who reported to authorities. These hotlines will eliminate the pressure and allow kids to come forward without fear of retaliation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. The Senate adopted a similar provision sponsored by Senators Robb and Sessions. We can make this easier for our children to report potential violent acts at school and we can provide a valuable tool to our communities to help reduce school violence. I would like to thank my staff, in particular Dave Buchanan, for all of his hard work on this.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation I have sponsored the previous three Congresses to help reduce the deficit and the debt. I urge my colleagues to join me and cosponsor my bill. Since my arrival in Washington, I have worked to reduce the deficit and reduce our nation's debt burden. This legislation takes another step in that direction by sending our unused office budget funds to the U.S. Treasury for deficit and debt reduction. Today, after several years of fiscal discipline, the federal government is currently ``in the black'' and running surpluses for the first time in 30 years. But we still have a national debt of more than $5.4 Trillion. This simple but important step will go a long way to show the American people that we are serious about debt reduction and that we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. Alone, this legislation won't eliminate the debt. But combined with our other efforts to reduce budgets, limit spending and run the government more efficiently, we can eliminate the national debt too. Specifically, my legislation requires that any unused portions of our Members' Representational Allowances are to be deposited into the Treasury for either deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt. The bill also requires the Appropriations Committee to report in its annual legislative branch appropriations bill a list of the amount that each Member deposited into the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to return our unused office funds to the U.S. Treasury for deficit or debt reduction.