Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 4, men and women of a variety of union trades gathered in Marquette, Michigan to honor Wayne P. Roy, who retired from federal employment in 1998. Mr. Roy had served 11 years as the Apprenticeship and Training Representative, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, U.S. Department of Labor. His service area included the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which makes up a large portion of my congressional district, and northern Wisconsin. Prior to that, Wayne Roy worked for the Michigan State AFL-CIO's Labor Employment and Development Program as the Upper Peninsula coordinator for several years. Those are the dry facts of Wayne Roy's employment, Mr. Speaker. They only hint at a lifetime of commitment to issues that affect the hardworking people of northern Michigan. In fact, this dedication to union issues was a family tradition that began before his birth. Wayne's father George was a miner in the Upper Peninsula and an officer in his local union. Wayne's mother Delima was a member of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and the Steelworkers Women's Auxiliary. It was only natural, therefore, that as a child Wayne would learn the importance of unions at his parents' side as he joined them at labor rallies and on picket lines. After graduating from Gwinn High School, Wayne served a 4-year stint in the Navy until 1958, and then began a series of jobs that would give him membership in several unions. Through one job in Milwaukee, he joined the Chemical Workers, and then through a second he joined Teamsters Local 344, serving as part-time shop steward and committee member. Returning to the Upper Peninsula, Wayne took a job with a mining company and became a member of Steelworkers Local 4950. In 1968 he joined Sheet Metal Workers Local 94, serving as the union's president for 9 years. Wayne Roy's commitment to the labor movement led him to take positions with a variety of area civic and political groups, where he could broaden his effort on behalf of working men and women and find new ways to serve his community. Such service included the board chairmanship of the United Way of Marquette County and the Marquette County Economic Development Corporation, presidency of the Marquette County Labor Council, and memberships on such panels as the Central Upper Peninsula Private Industry Council, the American Red Cross, the Forsyth Township Zoning Board, and the Marquette Prison Inmate Apprenticeship Committee. It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that even as Wayne Roy and his wife Hazel raised seven children, he was demonstrating his belief that our best community leaders are actually public servants, who seek out every opportunity to improve the quality of life of their neighborhood, their place of employment, their city or township, even their region. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask my House colleagues to join me in saluting this dedicated fighter for better lives for ordinary working people. As one of Wayne Roy's colleagues said recently, he ``proudly bears a union label on his soul.''

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down and sharing his concerns. I know the gentleman from Virginia would like to speak on school violence, and I would like to yield to him at this point in time.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for joining us tonight and thanks for coming down and joining us. As one of the leaders in the education field, as the gentleman has been, with a new Democratic coalition and others, we really appreciate the insight he has given us as to what works in Indiana, in his district, as I said earlier. What works in New Jersey or Michigan or wherever it might be, it may work in that community or that State unique unto itself but all of our communities in this country right now are basically subject to violence in families, in schools and communities. No matter how one cuts it, no matter where one stands on the issues, there just seem to be so many weapons available and so much alienation out there and so many opportunities for violence. I am sure if the gentleman looks closer in his polling results that he has seen, he will see there is sort of like this hopelessness out there, confusion and despair on what we should do, and the gentleman is absolutely right, there is no simple solution. There is no quick political fix to this vexing problem. We need vision, we need action, and we need long-term commitment, and again not just for 1 year or 3 years or 5 years, but at least a generation. I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has always worked in a bipartisan way with Democrats and Republicans and that is what we are asking here. As the Democratic Caucus, we have been reaching out and we will continue not just to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle but also over in the Senate to try to find some kind of solutions. All these things, whether it is the community, the schools, the homes or guns, they are all interrelated, interconnected. We have to be prepared to start addressing all parts of the problem. I wish we could but the Federal Government just cannot pass a law, the Federal Government just cannot reconcile America, or alienation within the family or even within each other, but we certainly can encourage; we would support and do anything we can to assist. So I certainly appreciate the gentleman's time and effort in coming down here tonight to speak with us. There is another issue, of course, that is on the minds of all Americans and that is, of course, Kosovo. One of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), wanted to take a few moments, so I am going to yield him some time to talk about that situation. So while we talk about school violence or what is happening, we still have other matters that we must address again hopefully in a bipartisan way, and I would yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, realizing my time has expired, I once again would just like to thank the Speaker for his courtesies here tonight and understand that of course that as we address this issue, it is more than just guns, but things are happening in communities, in schools and in homes, and we invite Democrats and Republicans to come together and address this in a bipartisan manner

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, for those words. And I would also like the Record to note that earlier today, when we finished business, that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) also came down and spoke about recent shootings and tragedies facing this country. I want to speak tonight, as the Speaker's designee in our special order, about what we Democrats as a party have been trying to do here to address this very, very serious national crisis, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic leader, stated. But what we say here tonight, I want everyone to understand, is not a Democratic or Republican issue. We want to work with both sides to try to bring some consensus if we can on things that we should take as a Nation. But I think it is important for us to understand where some of us see as where we are going. And things I say here tonight are my beliefs as the convening chair of the Crime and Drug Task Force for the Democrats, not just this Congress but the past Congress, and does not necessarily reflect the views of everybody in our caucus. And I am sure they do not reflect the views of my Republican friends. But some of us are beginning to sit back and try to meet individually and bipartisan; and, as a Democratic caucus, we have been convening the chairs of the Education Task Force, the Health and Human Services Task Force, of the Crime and Drug Task Force and we have been meeting. We were meeting before the tragedy of a month ago out in Colorado and really since the first of the year really. We had numerous meetings. In fact, today we had another one that we convened and tried to kick around more and more ideas and bounce ideas off people. I know many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, have been in schools and talking with teachers and parents and what can we could. As the convening chair, my qualifications before I came into the U.S. Congress was I was a police officer for 12 years as a city police officer and as a Michigan State police trooper and worked with juveniles, worked in juvenile crime areas, and taught criminal investigations at the academies and constitutional law and everything else. And the school violence issue that has swept across the Nation the last 18 months, it is hard to put into words how it has torn at so many of us and how do we best address it. What we have found through all of the meetings, through everything that has happened, even with the shootings today in Conyers, Georgia, I think the only thing we can see say is this is a very complex issue and there is no single solution, there is no magic program that we can pass that would solve this. And we have got to get past blame games. I know the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, again has asked the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to try to put together a bipartisan group. And I hope we can do that. As we looked at what has happened, many of us see America has become alienated from each other. We see increases in hate crimes. For our children, we see and the experts tell us that we spend over the last 15 years one-third less time with our children than we did 15 years ago. So there is maybe less structure, maybe less discipline there, less guidance for our children. For our children, the alienation that we see is now surfacing in schools. Society's problems are beginning to surface in schools. And even from our own leadership, I think when we have disputes on the floor which end in harsh words amongst each other does not speak well of the House as a whole or elected leaders and contributes to that alienation. It is time for people to come together to try to reconcile our differences, the ill will that exists not only on the House floor of the U.S. Congress but the ill will that may exist in our families, our homes, our schools, our communities, our leaders, and even within ourselves. So how do we end alienation and begin reconciliation to end the school and personal violence that we see that is gripping the headlines every night? How we do it is probably as varied as America. What works in North Carolina may not work in Michigan. Or we know the program that may work in North Carolina, character education, as they tell me, we may know it by a different name in Michigan where I represent. But what works in my northern rural district certainly will not work in the inner cities of our great cities. But what we understand is this. We understand that 100,000 weapons, be it guns or knives, come to school each day. We know that there are four times more guns out there, handguns, than there are children going to school, so there is access to guns readily available. We know as the Democratic leader said, there are 13 deaths per day of young people in America. We know that school psychologists tell us that probably 20 percent of the kids, students from K through 12 probably 20 percent of them need some help in dealing with problems at home, call it mental health problems, if you will. They also tell us that 3 to 6 percent of the students in our schools have severe mental health problems. So when children lash out with those statistics, with the ready availability of weapons coming to and from school, you can see how the violence erupts and comes out and we see the headlines we see each and every day. We ask the statisticians and others in our meetings, is there a large enough sample of violence with the shootings that have occurred in the last 18 months, enough of a sample to say, are there similar characteristics of school violence in America? They have told us, no, the sample is not large enough, that any kind of conclusions you may draw from the incidents may very well be skewed because they have been small. Let us hope the sample does not get any larger. But we should not wait until there is enough violence in our schools to say, ``Okay, now we have enough sample, what can we do?'' I think there is enough for us to work together as Democrats and Republicans to come together and start to look at what can we do. There have been many ideas kicked around. I would just like to share some of them tonight, not that any one of these ideas would be a solution but at least I want the Congress and the American people to know we are thinking, we are looking, we are probing, we are asking the questions and we need your input. Many of us feel that maybe there should be a national commission to examine not just the short-term but what are the long-term impacts, what is the long-term approach that we want to take here? It seems like violence in America is constantly shifting. Maybe we need a national focus, much like maybe the Carter Commission we had in the late 1960s to address the problems facing the country then that actually put forth some proposals and some solutions. How do schools and communities access what may work or may not work? What ideas are out there? How do they reach out? You have so many programs going on in the Federal and State governments and Department of Education and Department of Justice and the Health and Human Services and public health, can we not somehow put these programs under an umbrella so schools can easily access to learn what is working in northern Michigan that may work in southern California. Can we have a national clearinghouse? Can we be under a commission and an agency? Can we do a one-stop shopping area, if you will, so we know what is working? We have plenty of studies out there across this country that says this works up here in Boston, Massachusetts, or character education based on this model will work in North Carolina, or school resource officers work in Michigan. How do we allow everyone to access it? New Jersey has a program called crisis intervention officers. Is that different from a school resource officer which is really community policing where parents and teachers and students work together in a partnership to keep down crime and violence in the schools. We have met with former pro football star Jim Brown. His program Ameri-Can is a great program that may help us and is being used in 14 different States right now to address after-school problems and self- esteem that young people need. His program looks like one that may work. It may not work again in my northern Michigan area but it certainly is one we should look at. Each community, each State is unique unto themselves, but as we have seen in the last 18 months, we are all subject to the same violence in families and in schools and communities. From the victims families, from all the folks we have had a chance to talk to, it seems there is a lot of confusion and hopelessness and despair out there. As I said, there is no simple solution. There is no political quick fix. We need vision. That is why I was so pleased today to see both the Democratic leader and the Speaker speaking of a willingness to work together and a need of a vision in this country, an action and a long-term commitment. Unfortunately in the United States Congress, we authorize and pass programs that will last for 1 year or we do a pilot program for a year or two. Then if it looks pretty good, we will use a 3-year program or a 5-year program. But I think we need a long-term commitment here. We need at least a commitment of a generation. I think it is incumbent upon this generation to start putting forth and thinking long-term so we can save not only this but also future generations. As I said earlier, the family situations, the situations that we see in school are reflective of so many families that are surfacing in the schools. So you cannot say it is a State issue. You cannot say it is a local issue. I think the Federal Government must show some resolve. By that, we in the Democratic Party believe that it is not just something that we pass a program and then block grant it to the States. We at the Federal level must show the resolve. We cannot shirk from this responsibility. We just cannot block grant away another national problem. This is a national problem and it is begging for a national solution. But if you are going to get at the root of the problem, I think you have to strike at maybe four main elements we have seen, we have looked at, we have studied, we have discussed in our many meetings and discussions with experts. It is what is happening in our communities, what is happening in our homes, what is happening in schools and yes, what is even happening with the proliferation of guns when we have four handguns for every student going to school floating around these communities, the easy accessibility of them. Do you address all four of them? I think you have to address all four because all are interrelated. They are interconnected. All are branches, if you will, on a tree that combine to form a trunk or the base but underneath there lie the roots and the roots which anchor the tree, the forbidden tree, if you will, the anchor of school violence and death that we have unfortunately seen once again here today. The branches on this tree, be it guns, schools and communities or the home, look remarkably similar, and it probably should, because it is us. It is really America. It is what we teach. It is what we teach the baby roots, our children, if you will. So when they grow, they become the anchor of the tree of school violence and death. So let us not fail to see the forest but for the trees and let us not fail to see America for the violence we are experiencing because America is the greatest country there has ever been. We have an opportunity here now to stop and look at what is going on in this country, in our communities, in our schools, in our homes, and what can we do as a Nation? The violence, we just cannot look at it in other people. We have to look within ourselves. Because the violence is ingrained. It is not just what we do or what we say, but I think we also have to go beyond that and the violence or the signals we send can also be caused by what we do not do or what we do not say. By what we do, like reconcile differences within our homes, our families and our schools and our communities would be a start. So where do we start? If we focus with the schools, as I said earlier, I believe society's problems are surfacing here, for all to see, to place our sons and daughters and children in with the schools, let us focus on the schools and what should we be advocating, what should we be doing? Again, there is no simple program to pass, if the Congress would pass it and fund it, it would go away. Congress cannot reconcile America's alienation within the family or within each of us, but we certainly can encourage you, support you and assist you. And here are some of the ways some of us believe we should start. The Federal Head Start program. Can we not expand that program? Many of us for years have said, look, at 3 to 5 years old, they should be in Head Start. We should fully fund it. But if we expand that program, can we not teach mandatory in the curriculum violence prevention and conflict resolution? Why can we not take that one and expand it? It has been interesting as we have had the Law Enforcement Caucus, we have had experts in many times and it has been interesting that the larger cities have noticed the problems they were having in their schools and part of their curriculum is violence prevention and conflict resolution. It is interesting to note it has not been the larger school districts that we see that are having the violence that we have been witnessing lately. Maybe there is something there that we should teach and why not start it at the Federal Head Start program? We have the healthy child program. It is a program that coupled aspects of it, last year in the balanced budget agreement, we put in CHIPs, Children's Health Initiative Program, CHIPs as we call it for short. That was to help young people who do not have health insurance have health insurance. In the State of Michigan, we are like 20,000 applications behind. People are waiting 6 months to access this program. They are either going to be in the Medicaid program or the CHIPs program. Why do they have to wait 6 months? Why are we 20,000 applications behind, when I was bringing it up with the governors representatives and then we really do not have a good idea or a good answer on why they cannot expedite the program and provide it to these people, to the young people who are uninsured, especially when we talk about the mental health provisions that 20 percent of the students are coming to school with mental health problems or difficulties or need someone to talk to and 3 to 6 percent of them have severe mental health, how come we are not addressing that? Why are we not expanding these programs to address these needs? If you take the K through 12, we have heard from school counselors and probably everybody across America says, ``Yeah, I know a school counselor,'' but when you talk to the counselors, we say what are you doing, are you there to counsel, are you there to help, are you there to be there for the students, to interact with them. Basically they tell us, ``Well, we really don't have time because we're busy with the busing schedule,'' or ``We're busy doing the curriculum,'' or ``We're busy preparing the students for the next round of testing going on by this group or that group or the State,'' or ``We just really are helping the students who want to go on to college with their college applications and things like this.'' The counseling that we envisioned or we saw when we were in school just is not there anymore. So if the counseling, be it nurses, psychologists, school resource officers, crisis intervention officers, counselors, cops in the schools, should we not make sure that if they are going to do this, they have the opportunity to do it and not get bogged down and not be utilized for busing or for curriculum development or testing or college applications? Should they not really have it, should there not be a professional staff that could help there? And should that not in order to protect them from the budget cuts that occur all the time as local taxpayers struggle to keep their millage rates low to provide a quality education? If they are the first people who are cut every time there is a budget cut, is there a place then for the Federal Government to step forward and say, look, if there are going to be professional staff, should the Federal Government not at least put forth the majority of their salary so they are not subject to these cutbacks, so they can be there to interact? And what about before and after school programs? Everyone tells us that the juvenile crime rate is the highest between 4 o'clock and 8 p.m. at night when the students are out of school and they have idle time on their hands. Can we not have programs? I have often wondered why these so-called after-school programs are only run during school but when young people are out and about the most during the summer, there is no program. Should there not really be a year-round program for them? Should cities or schools not do sponsorship? Like in our city we have the summer recreation program but after school starts, what about those who are no longer in sports, what is for them? In my hometown after that? Again can we use these professional Federal staff people to assist there? That is something I think we should take a look at. We talked a lot about school hot lines. School hot lines, ones that have been used out East here quite a bit with some success. Those were the school hot lines we talked about the student using if they have a concern, be it safety or just a concern, they can use the hotline to call in and someone would get back with them, be it one of those counselors or nurses or crisis intervention people or school resource officers. With the recent incidents from Colorado and now too in Georgia, the superintendents are telling us and even in my district, even last Monday we had another bomb threat, how do you crack down on that if you have a hotline? Does that become the hotline for the bomb threats or the assaults or alleged assaults on the school? Then do you put in the caller ID? Can you crew the trap lines? Can you backtrack it, to cut down on these? And why could the hotline not be a parent's link to the school to see what is going on in the school, what events are going on, what is the drama club doing, what is their next event? Also why can the homework assignments not be there so the parents know if there is homework assignments, so they can take an active role in there? Another suggestion we have heard in our many, many meetings is why can we not do hold and safe rooms? Hold and safe rooms is, I mentioned earlier, 100,000 weapons come to school every day with young people. If you are with a weapon in school, what happens? Do you hopefully not like what happened in one school shooting incident where the student came with a weapon in school, was sent home, got more weapons and unfortunately violence erupted. So holding safe rooms, should each district have one, have one designated, that is a program that does not even cost anything, but what it tells us is a student comes here with a weapon, we are just not going to release them back into the community without holding them and making sure they are safe and making sure all precautions are taken to protect that student, other students and the community itself. And what if the student is removed from school? I have heard governors say throughout this great Nation of ours, that first student that comes to a class with a weapon, just throw them out of school, no questions asked. Then where does it go? Where does the student go? Back into our communities? Do they work? Where do they go? There is nothing to help them, and just letting them loose back into the community does not seem to be the answer of all we have seen in these recent months, in the last 2 years. So some States have what they call alternative schools. Some of us like to call them reentry schools. And if you are going to be suspended for whatever, be it weapons or whatever it may be, why not, before you come back into your school, there is a reentry which must address the reasons for your suspension, and especially if it had something to do with weapons or drugs or alcohol. Let us answer, let us answer those questions before you reenter. I indicated earlier that guns unfortunately are readily accessible and four guns for every one student we have, and 100,000 weapons come to school a day, and we have 13 deaths a day of young people. How do you begin to address that? If you are going to start addressing legislation such as that, I think not only you have to address what is happening in communities but also in our homes. And in the last week you have seen many dramatic votes in the Senate on it, everything from 21 years old to purchase hand guns to closing the Brady loophole on checks at gun shows and pawn shops and child safety locks and liability and storage, and these are things I think that we have to address and at least talk about. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, conservative, liberal, it is something we have to have a discussion about, and hopefully it can be a meaningful discussion. We have talked, many of us, and I know even today the Speaker mentioned about ratings on games and Internet access and things like that; and besides all the meetings we have been having, we have been hearing articles and experts talk about are we really training our children to kill, and they talk about the desensitization which is going on with children. And many experts have said, and if I can quote from one or two articles, children do not naturally kill, they learn it from violence in the home, and most pervasively from violence as entertainment and television, movies and interactive video games. And they go on to say that every time a child plays an interactive video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex skills as a soldier or a police officer in training. Mr. Speaker, every parent in America desperately wants to be warned of the impact of TV and other violent media on children, but unfortunately we have seen, I said on the Committee on Commerce, unfortunately we have seen a lot of our TV networks sort of stonewall what it really means in our key means of public education in America, and I hope we are not stonewalling them. These are all issues that we have been trying to address, and there have been again many, many articles that we have looked at, we have argued about, we have debated, and we continue to look for answers. As I said, there is no one single program, there is no one single solution, there is no Democratic or Republican solution here. We must work together on this. As we talked about the counselors, there are about 90,000 counselors right now in America, and they are in the public schools from middle to high school. We have 90,000 counselors for 19.4 million students. That comes out to about 1 counselor for every 450 students. But as we spoke to those counselors and their representatives, they said, ``We do not get a chance to counsel anymore like we used to. We actually spend time,'' as I said earlier, ``helping on developing core curriculum, helping on the busing schedule, helping out with kids wanting to go on to college,'' and how do we help them out there, ``and just basically doing testing, testing, testing so our school scores well on the test so we can hopefully get more resources.'' But the kids are lost in the whole shuffle. So is it feasible to put in 100,000 more counselors, much as we did 100,000 cops on the street, to stop this violence that we see in our schools? And if you looked at it, that would add about 100,000 more counselors, would bring it down to 1 to 250 students. But then we got to make sure those counselors are not bogged down doing busing, or testing, or core curriculum development, or college preparation. And what about after school programs? We think there are many of them, good programs that can work, whether it is Amer-I-Can or Boys and Girls Clubs or whatever, why can we not do those things? As my colleagues know, we just did an emergency supplemental appropriations that the President asked for $6 billion, ended up being $15 billion, and we passed that. Can we not put forth an emergency school supplemental appropriation? And what about family, school and teacher initiatives? Why can we not have these hot lines? Why can we not expand the family medical leave that we tried to do, to make it available so parents can go to school to spend some time with their children, whether or not, not just at report card time but other times? Why can we not expand that? These are just some of the ideas I said that have come out of the Democratic Caucus. We have been working on it since the first of the year. It has taken on new urgency with the situation in Colorado and again here today in Conyers, Georgia, but I want you to know that we have been working and thinking and trying to take your suggestions and ideas that have come from the American people and from the psychologists and National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers and everyone we met with, and as House Members we have even met with Senate Members. And again, we are all trying to pull together, and unfortunately today's incident once again leads me to come to the floor tonight to join with the Democratic leaders and others to try to talk about what we are doing, what we are doing. And I notice one of the leaders in this area, Mr. Roemer from Indiana, is here, and at this time I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I like to pay special tribute today to 1st Lieutenant Robert Krafft, who is retiring after a career of law enforcement with Michigan State Police. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I served as a law enforcement officer. In point of fact, I first served with Bob Krafft early in my own career with the Michigan State Police. In one sense, my own law enforcement career ended when I was injured in the line of duty and retired in 1984. In a deeper sense, however, the friendships that form among law enforcement officers are bonds that survive changes in careers and changes in address. In that regard, when I founded the Law Enforcement Caucus in my freshman year in Congress, I was not only giving my many comrades in law enforcement a voice in Washington, but I was also giving myself a professional reason to maintain these strong ties to many good friends and providing myself with an opportunity to forge new friendships with dedicated people in law enforcement. Now, one of these old friends, Bob Krafft, is retiring after a 26- year career. I recall moving into this neighborhood, where he took me under his wing. My recollections of those first years of our friendship remain vivid, as he took me deer hunting, as I met his wife Sue and watched their daughter grow. Even though our law enforcement work carried us in different directions, the bond we formed as friends, neighbors and law enforcement officers has always dissolved the distance that geography put between us. Last week here in Washington we spotlighted U.S. law enforcement in a number of ways. We paid special tribute to fallen officers, and we celebrated funding 100,000 new police officers under the Community Policing program. This Friday, May 21, the co-workers of Bob Krafft will celebrate one man's career in law enforcement. I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in wishing the best in retirement for this dedicated public servant.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I like to pay special tribute today to Detective Sergeant Charlie Gross, who is retiring after a career of law enforcement with the Michigan State Police. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I served as a law enforcement officer. In point of fact, I served with Charlie in a variety of posts, while our careers seem to follow a parallel track. In one sense, my own law enforcement career ended when I was injured in the line of duty and retired in 1984. In a deeper sense, I however, the friendships that form among law enforcement officers are bonds that survive changes in careers and changes in address. In that regard, when I founded the Law Enforcement Caucus in my freshman year in Congress, I was not only giving my many comrades in law enforcement a voice in Washington, but I was also giving myself a professional reason to maintain these strong ties to many good friends and providing myself with an opportunity to forge new friendships with dedicated people in law enforcement. Now, one of these old friends is retiring after a 27 year career. The unit D/Sgt. Gross will actually leave is a Michigan State Police tactical drug unit, the Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team, known as UPSET. Charlie was one of the first troopers I met on the road in 1974, and we seemed to stay on the same career road. When I was transferred to Lansing, Charlie was in Lansing. When I went back to the Upper Peninsula, Charlie went to the Upper Peninsula. As he gained knowledge and experience, Charlie demonstrated a wide array of skills, including sharing his knowledge with other troopers by teaching traffic safety, the proper use of the Breathalyzer, and other investigative subjects. Last week here in Washington we spotlighted U.S. law enforcement in a number of ways. We paid special tribute to fallen officers, and we celebrated funding 100,000 new police officers under the Community Policing program. This Saturday, the co-workers of Charlie Gross will celebrate one man's career in law enforcement. I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in wishing the best in retirement for this dedicated public servant.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Police Week. Today I was at the White House Rose Garden for the unveiling of the COPS program, which calls for an additional 50,000 police officers. I want to thank President Clinton for his efforts in bringing community- oriented policing services to towns and cities all across America. I have served as both a city police officer and a Michigan State police trooper for approximately 12 years. When I was elected to the Michigan Legislature in 1988, I authored legislation to bring community policing to Michigan. I have always advocated bringing police officers and citizens together, coming together, working together to solve neighborhood and community problems. As a police officer and as a Congressman of an extremely rural district, I would like to thank the President for the 195 police officers the COPS program has brought to my northern Michigan communities, 28 counties in the northern part of Michigan. The COPS program's harshest critics are the people it searches, the chiefs of police and the local sheriffs. Yet no matter what their party affiliation, whether they be Democrat, Republican or Independent, they have all praised the ease of handling of the COPS program and the one- page grant application. Nationally, we are witnessing a dramatic decrease in crime rates. More cops on the street, coupled with a booming economy, helps to decrease crime. Yet, we are haunted by recent events of unforeseen violence in our Nation's schools. I hope and pray that today's COPS initiative becomes a commitment not just for our Nation but also for our schools through the School Resource Officer Program, COPS in schools. COPS working in partnership with our teachers and our students to solve crime can stop the unprecedented violence. COPS and School Resource Officers cannot be a 1-year program, a 3-year program, or a 5- year program. It must be a commitment of our generation to save future generations. It is with this COPS initiative and a commitment to the School Resource Officer program that we can duplicate the success of the COPS program to reduce violence in schools. I have brought my years of service as a police officer to the Congress. One of the things I did when I first got here was to form a Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus to start a dialogue between Members of Congress and police officers. President Bill Clinton has always joined in our dialogue, and we appreciate this administration's continued commitment to law enforcement. Together, the Law Enforcement Caucus and this administration have looked out for the health and safety of law enforcement officers throughout the Nation. Together, we have passed legislation to provide education benefits for dependents of slain and disabled police officers, appropriated grant monies so local law enforcement officers can purchase bulletproof vests, waived the Federal income tax on pension benefits of slain officers, and of course initiated the School Resource Officer program. So I would like to thank the President not just for caring about reducing the Nation's crime rate but helping to take care of America's crime fighters. But no matter how much we do, no matter how much we try to ensure the safety of the men and women in law enforcement, we know that death is possible and it strikes suddenly and swiftly, without warning. Approximately 1 year ago today I was on this floor arguing for more bulletproof vests for more law enforcement officers when Sergeant Dennis Finch lay on the front porch dying, shot by a deranged gunman, who kept other fellow officers and paramedics from going to Dennis' aid. Sergeant Dennis Finch of the Traverse City Police Department died the next day. Tomorrow night I will join Dennis' family, fellow officers, and other officers from all around this Nation at the Police Memorial in Judiciary Square here in Washington, D.C. at a candlelight vigil to honor Dennis and 157 other fallen law enforcement officers who were killed in 1998. Every other day a law enforcement officer in the United States is killed. So as I advocate for the new COPS program, as I advocate for greater benefits for fallen officers and their families, and greater protections for all law enforcement officers, I am pleased to say that as a cop I know what it means to have a good partner: That is one you can count on. And we in law enforcement have no better partners in our fight against crime than President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic party. I salute all current and past law enforcement officers and our fallen officers. May God grant them and their families peace.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution to honor law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hefley, for sponsoring this important legislation. I am pleased to be here to participate in this debate. Before coming to Congress in 1993, I served for 12 years as a police officer, both as a city officer and as a state trooper. I have known many officers who have given their lives for the people they serve and understand the importance of the House of Representatives taking this step to honor law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. In May of 1998, in my district, Traverse City Sgt. Dennis Finch was killed while on duty. A 30 year veteran of the police force, Sgt. Finch was shot during a stand off with an armed gunman. He was survived by his wife and two daughters who will be in Washington this week participating in many of the Police Week activities. Just last summer everybody in this body was reminded of the extreme sacrifice our nation's law enforcement and public safety officers make to our communities and our nation when Officers Chestnut and Gibson were killed here in the Capitol. Unfortunately, there were many more officers killed last year. In 1998, 158 officers lost their lives while on the job. This brings the total to more than 15,000 men and women who have given their lives serving the public as law enforcement officers. This legislation recognizes the value our government places on the work of our public safety officers. It is important that we take time this week to show our respect and recognition for the jobs that police officers do every day in every city and town in America. Join me to support this resolution. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line every day.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today about the WIC program, a program dedicated to improving the nutrition and health care needs of low-income women, infants and children. WIC is celebrating 25 years of service, Mr. Speaker. The value of these 25 years is illustrated by a few key facts expressed in terms of dollars. Every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC produces between $1.92 and $4.21 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers. Medicaid costs were reduced on average by $12,000 to $15,000 per infant for every low-birth-weight birth prevented because the mother was involved in the WIC program during her pregnancy. There is a lot more, Mr. Speaker, in terms of dollars saved and common sense, but there is a more important savings, a human savings. WIC children get a better start in life, they do better in school, and they lead healthier lives. All this translates into an overall better quality of life, and that is the real reason for celebrating WIC's 25th anniversary.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this is Earth Day. This is the day when, in the simplest of terms, we are supposed to say smokestacks are bad and trees are good, that cars are bad and bicycles and buses are good. Those of us concerned about the environment, of course, realize that environmental issues have many more facets. Consider the case of the Great Lakes. It was in October, Mr. Speaker, that many of my colleagues gave unanimous approval to my resolution which called on the President and the other body to act to prevent the sale or diversion of Great Lakes water to foreign countries, businesses, corporations and individuals. The House, speaking with one voice, asked that procedures be established to guarantee that any sale or diversion of Great Lakes water be fully negotiated and approved by representatives of the Governments of the United States and Canada. I want to remind our colleagues of this House action because, Mr. Speaker, there is another threat to the Great Lakes, one which is posed by the drilling of oil and gas in and under the waters of our Great Lakes. Let me take a few moments on this Earth Day to discuss water diversion and drilling in the Great Lakes. First, let me pose these questions: Are we being alarmists? Are diversion and drilling real threats to one of the world's most valuable resources? Consider, Mr. Speaker, these facts in terms of this potential impact on the Great Lakes. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is covered with water, but 97.5 percent of that is sea water. Only 2.5 percent of the surface water is fresh water. And nearly 70 percent of the fresh water is frozen glacial water. The Great Lakes contains 6 trillion gallons of fresh water, one-fifth of the Earth's fresh water supply. The Great Lakes are home to 40 million people. One-quarter of Canada's population lives in the Great Lakes basin. The World Bank predicts that by the year 2025, more than 3 billion people in 52 countries will suffer water shortages for drinking or sanitation. More than 300 cities in China right now are experiencing water shortages, and more than 100 are deemed to be in a condition of acute water scarcity. Citizens of the United States and Canada use and consume more than 100 gallons of water per day per person. The global water demand is doubling every 21 years. Eighty percent of all fresh water is used for agricultural purposes. I would like to thank the Buffalo News for many of these facts, Mr. Speaker. I present them as random facts because, like pieces of a puzzle, they must be analyzed and arranged to see their importance. The World Bank has studied this puzzle, and I call the attention of my colleagues to a quote from a World Bank report, which the Buffalo News used as the jump lead in a March 1999 story. The World Bank report predicted, ``Wars of the next century will be fought over water.'' Are we really be willing alarmists? A company in Sault St. Marie, Ontario, just one company, was given a permit to take up to 2.6 million gallons per day of water for the next 5 years. I was joined by members of the Ontario parliament and the New Democratic Party in bringing public attention to this permit, which was then revoked by the Ontario government. But all fresh water will increasingly be eyed as a potential commodity on the world market. A Vancouver-based company, Global Water Corporation, has an agreement with the Alaskan community of Sitka to take water from a lake and ship it by tanker to China. The deal allows Global to take up to 5 billion gallons a year for 30 years. Now, I have spoken of just two companies. We know the market is there. We can easily see the overhead is minimal, the market is expanding, and the potential number of speculators and potential shippers is unlimited. Let me say that one more time, Mr. Speaker, that although I have mentioned China twice in my remarks, I am not attempting to invoke it as a threat to our own security. China is merely a customer who is in need of water now. The world, the entire world, will be eyeing our natural resources in the Great Lakes. As of today, the sale and diversion of Great Lakes water and all fresh water from North America remains unresolved. Following the House vote on my resolution, the U.S. and Canada have asked the international Joint Commission to study the issue of water diversion along the entire border from Alaska to the St. Lawrence River. Their preliminary report on diversion should be ready in about 5 months. A final report on our joint water resources should be done early next year. In the meantime, it is the policy of my home State of Michigan to press for drilling of oil and gas under the Great Lakes. Canada allows gas drilling directly in the Great Lakes. Proponents of oil drilling in the Great Lakes say the risk is minimal, small, tiny. I say tiny is too big. A gallon of oil spilled in Lake Superior would take 999 years to be cleared out by natural flow; Lake Michigan, 99 years; Lake Huron, 60 years. So if my colleagues want to play Russian roulette, Mr. Speaker, how many barrels on their gun would they be comfortable with? 100,000? One million? I wish my colleagues in the Nation a happy Earth Day, and I ask them to consider my legislation to protect this valuable resource.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation was introduced by Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee in the Senate earlier this year. I want to thank them for their hard work and their leadership on this legislation. I look forward to working with them, as well as Members of this body to ensure swift passage of this legislation. This legislation would ensure comparable data and an adequate evaluation of children's health coverage under the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid. In 1997, CHIP was established to provide health coverage for low- income uninsured children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided $48 billion over 10 years, mostly in the form of a block grant, for States to develop children's health insurance programs. With new Federal CHIP funding, more States are beginning to develop their own programs. To date, 48 States have CHIP plans that have been approved by the Health Care Financing Administration, with most just beginning to implement their programs. In my home State of Michigan, reports have been mixed about the effectiveness of the program. All Members want to ensure that the program we instituted is carried out in an appropriate manner. We await reports on the effectiveness of their efforts to cover the Nation's uninsured children and I believe this bill will go along way in developing information on its effectiveness. Implementing their programs is the first challenge the States must confront. For the Federal Government, the first challenge clearly will be to track the experience of children and of the CHIP programs. We will need data to answer some basic questions: Is the number of uninsured children being reduced over time, and how effective are the State CHIP programs at serving them? What are the best practices and initiatives for finding and enrolling the Nation's uninsured children? The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999 calls for a detailed Federal CHIP evaluation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Current law requires a CHIP report from the Secretary to Congress; however, no funds were authorized. This bill would provide the necessary funds to conduct an evaluation. The evaluation would focus, in part, on outreach and enrollment and on coordinating the existing Medicaid program and the new CHIP program. In this era of devolution of social programs, the Federal Government has an increasingly critical responsibility to ensure adequate and comparable national data. This bill would ensure that standardized CHIP data is provided. At the very least, the Federal Government should provide, on a national level, estimates of the number of children below the poverty level who are covered by CHIP and by Medicaid. The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act would provide funding so that existing national surveys would provide reliable and comparable State-by-State data. The most fundamental question we, as policy makers, will be asking is whether the number of uninsured children is going down. With an increasing percent of uninsured, a stable rate might be considered a success! This bill would provide additional funding to the Census Bureau for its Current Population Survey--a national data source of the uninsured--to improve upon the reliability of its State-by-State estimates of uninsured children. In addition, the proposal would provide funding for another national survey to provide reliable State-by-State data on health care access and utilization for low-income children. Although this survey may also provide data on the number of uninsured, the CPS would be the primary source for such figures. Also, to develop more efficient and centralized statistics, this bill would coordinate a Federal clearinghouse for all data bases and reports on children's health. Centralized and complete information is the key to sound policy and programs. We need this information, not only to determine whether the States are properly instituting their CHIP programs, but to ensure that we continue our commitment to ensure that no children in this country are left without health care coverage. I have included a summary of the bill prepared by Senator Moynihan's staff to be included in the Record. Summary of the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999 Purpose In 1997, 10.7 million children were uninsured. The new State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and existing state Medicaid programs are intended to provide coverage for low-income children. The crucial question is whether the number of uninsured children has been reduced. Improved state-specific data is needed to provide that information. In addition, the Federal government should evaluate the effectiveness of these programs in finding and enrolling children in health insurance. Proposal State-by-state Uninsured Counts and Children's Health Care Access and Utilization. (1) Provide funds ($10 million annually) to the Census Bureau to make appropriate adjustments to the Current Population Survey (CPS) so that the CPS can provide reliable state-by-state data on uninsured children. (2) Provide funds ($9 million annually) to the National Center for Health Statistics to conduct the Children's Health portion of the State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) in order to produce reliable state-by-state data on the health care access and utilization for low-income children covered by various insurance programs such as Medicaid and CHIP. Federal Evaluation. With funding ($10 million), the Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit to Congress a Federal evaluation report that would include 10 states representing varying geographic, rural/urban, with various program designs. The evaluation would include more specific and comparable evaluation elements than are already included under Title XXI, such as including surveys of the target population (enrollees and other eligibles). The study would evaluate outreach and enrollment practices (for both CHIP and Medicaid), identify barriers to enrollment, assess states' Medicaid and CHIP program coordination, assess the effect of cost sharing on enrollment and coverage retention, and identify the reasons for disenrollment/retention. Standardized Reporting. States would submit standardized data to the Secretary, including enrollee counts disaggregated by income (below 100%), race/ethnicity, and age. If income could not be submitted in a standard form, the state would submit a detailed description of eligibility methodologies that outline relevant income disregards. States would also submit percentages of individuals screened that are enrolled in CHIP and in Medicaid, and the percent screened eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. Administrative Spending Reports for Title XXI. States would submit standardized spending reports for the following administrative costs: data systems, outreach efforts and program operation (eligibility/enrollment, etc.). Coordinate CHIP Data with Title V Data Requirements. Existing reporting requirements for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant provide data based on children's health insurance, including Medicaid. This bill would include the CHIP program in its reporting. IG Audit and GAO Report. The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services would audit CHIP enrollee data to identify children who are actually eligible for Medicaid. The General Accounting Office will report the results to Congress. Coordination of all Children Data and Reports. The Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services would consolidate all federal data base information and reports on children's health in a clearinghouse.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, since 1993, 11 outstanding labor leaders, individuals who have contributed to organizing, workplace fairness, worker dignity, and the advancement of the labor movement in northern Michigan, have been honored with induction into the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is housed in the Superior Dome on the campus of Northern Michigan University in Marquette. I have the honor once again this year to participate in this important and inspiring induction ceremony, which pays tribute to the dedicated efforts of Steve Courier of Escanaba on behalf of the labor movement. A brief look at his resume, Mr. Speaker, reveals an individual who had dedicated himself to community service. Not only has Steve demonstrated his commitment to the labor movement, but he has served his friends, neighbors and community in elective office and in social and professional organizations. Here's just a glimpse, an index, a catalogue listing, of the many groups that have benefited from Steve's many hours of service. The son of a pipefitter in Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 506, Steve served his own apprenticeship and went on to become the youngest elected business manager in the history of the Michigan Pipe Trades Council. He is now Third Vice President of the Michigan State Pipe Trades, and serves on the Board of Trustees for the Upper Peninsula Plumbers and Pipefitters Fringe Benefits Funds. Steve also serves as a member of the executive board of the Upper Peninsula Construction Labor Management Council. Steve served on the Delta County Board of Commissioners, has been active in his local Masons lodge, served with the Escanaba Community Foundation, Elks Lodge 354, and the fund-raising committee of Escanaba's Bonifas Arts Center. By his lifelong commitment in support of a wide variety of activities, Steve has convincingly demonstrated how strongly the labor movement is tied to the general well-being of the entire community. He has truly earned his place of honor with other labor leaders in our region. I look forward each year to the opportunity to gather with friends and associates in northern Michigan to praise these men and women, people like Steve Courier, who have dedicated themselves to doing great work as an ordinary, everyday task. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in praising these remarkable efforts.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, since 1993 eleven outstanding labor leaders, individuals who have contributed to organizing, workplace fairness, worker dignity, and the advancement of the labor movement in northern Michigan, have been honored with induction into the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is housed in the Superior Dome on the campus of Northern Michigan University in Marquette. I have the honor once again this year to participate in this important and inspiring induction ceremony, which pays tribute to the dedicated efforts of the late William Morrow of Escanaba on behalf of the labor movement. Mr. Morrow is being recognized for his efforts in organizing the construction laborers in the Upper Peninsula and his assistance in obtaining a charter for Laborer's International Union of North America, Local 1329, based in Iron Mountain, Mich. William Morrow's parents died when he was young, and he began working at age 16 as an operator of heavy equipment on dredges. He joined a union, because he believed a working person could receive a fare wage and decent working conditions with a union contract. Mr. Speaker, William Morrow believed unions helped both the ordinary working person and the employer, and he believed in the basic principle, ``an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.'' He was a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, and business representative from 1951-1968. He served as vice president for Local 324 from 1964-1968, and he achieved lifetime membership in Local 324 in December 1977. William Morrow's widow, Gertrude, still lives in Escanaba. We can praise the everyday efforts of the hard-working men and women of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, but there are monuments to the quality of their work that make our mere words seem insufficient to the task. One such monument is the great Mackinac Bridge, which connects Upper and Lower Michigan across the deep and dangerous Straits of Mackinac. Mr. Morrow worked on the bridge, part of the dredging operation necessary for construction of the two great towers of the suspension bridge. He was one of the more than 11,000 workers--3,500 on the site and 7,500 in shops and quarries off the site--required to construct this engineering marvel and testament to the courage and dedication of working America. I look forward each year to the opportunity to gather with friends and associates in northern Michigan to praise these men and women, people like William Morrow, who have dedicated themselves to doing great work as an ordinary, everyday task. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in praising these remarkable efforts.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, since 1993 eleven outstanding labor leaders, individuals who have contributed to organizing, workplace fairness, worker dignity, and the advancement of the labor movement in northern Michigan, have been honored with induction into the Upper Peninsula Labor Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is housed in the Superior Dome on the campus of Northern Michigan University in Marquette. I have the honor once again this year to participate in this important and inspiring induction ceremony, which pays tribute to the dedicated efforts of the late Jack Powell of Escanaba on behalf of the labor movement. Jack Powell had the kind of working career that could be the outline for an adventure novel. He was wildcat oil drilling at 13. Wildcatting, Mr. Speaker, is the risky venture of drilling a well outside a known field. It's a fitting start for life that included pioneering labor efforts in northern Michigan. After some years as a painter and wallpaper hanger in Chicago, Mr. Powell came to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the late 1930s, to find work, and he found it in the iron mines. In 1944 he was the first man to be assigned as an International Representative of the United Steelworkers of America on the Marquette Iron Range. Jack was known as an outstanding leader and a tough negotiator, and he made clear he had joined the labor movement to improve working conditions in the mines. He was active in organizing and negotiating for all USWA locals in the Upper Peninsula, but in the history of the Northern Michigan labor movement, Jack Powell may be best known to many for providing strong leadership and keeping his workers united during the 104 days of the 1946 Iron Mining Strike. In a long career that ran until his retirement in 1965, Jack was a member of the Michigan AFL executive board, a legislative representative for the United Steelworkers of America, and he was a good friend of August Scholle, better known as Gus, the Michigan AFL president at the time. A self-educated man, Jack was also a close friend of former NMU President Edgar Harden. Married to Marie Bracco of Ishpeming, Jack had two stepdaughters, one step-granddaughter, and three step-great-grandchildren. I look forward each year to the opportunity to gather with friends and associates in northern Michigan to praise these men and women, people like Jack Powell, who have dedicated themselves to doing great work as an ordinary, everyday task. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me is praising these remarkable efforts.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills to take body armor out of the hands of criminals and give law enforcement greater access to body armor. My first bill is entitled the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999, and is named for San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff, who was killed in 1994 by a gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and a Kevlar helmet. More than one hundred officers of the San Francisco Police Department were called to the residential area where the gunman fired in excess of 200 rounds of ammunition. Several officers actually ran out of ammunition in their attempt to stop the heavily-protected gunman. This bill criminalizes the use of body armor in conjunction with another crime, prohibits the purchase or possession of body armor by violent felons, and enables Federal agencies to donate surplus body armor to local law enforcement officers. This bill will begin to address the imbalance between the numbers of criminals who posses body armor and law enforcement officers, who do not posses body armor. Today, nearly 25% of all local law enforcement officers are not issued body armor. The FBI, DEA, ATF, INS, and U.S. Marshals are just a few of the federal agencies that have surplus body armor and would be able to donate it to local jurisdictions. My second bill, titled the Body Armor Restriction Act of 1999, prohibits the mail order sale of body armor. I introduced this bill in the 104th and 105th Congresses and hope we can pass it this year to keep body armor out of the hands of criminals. I have heard from law enforcement officers all across America about the increasing occurrences of drug dealers and other suspects possessing body armor. Criminal elements are being transformed into unstoppable ``terminators'' with virtually no fear of police and other crime fighters. These heavily-protected criminals are capable of unleashing total devastation on civilians and police officers alike, and the increasing availability of body armor in the wrong hands forecasts a future of greater danger to America, greater danger to the American people and growing threats to our institutions. As a former law enforcement officer, I know all too well the challenges confronting those who serve to protect public safety and fight crime. We have all seen vivid television footage of ``shoot outs'' between criminals and law enforcement. For example, just two years ago, a botched bank robbery in California was captured and displayed on national television. This gun battle highlighted how body armor gives criminals an unfair advantage during gun fights with police. Eleven police officers and six civilians were injured in that 20 minute gunfight with the Los Angeles Police Department. Thousands of rounds were fired by the two criminals, both of whom were wearing full protective body armor. Witnesses from the crime scene reported that the bullets fired from the police officers 9mm guns ``bounced off'' the bank robbers, and mushroomed as they fell to the ground. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor both the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999 and the Body Armor Restriction Act of 1999. They both take another step toward making our streets safer for America and for our law enforcement community. Let's quickly pass these bills and prevent these kinds of gunfights form happening in the future.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would not only support the Coast Guard reauthorization and associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) as to the importance of the Coast Guard not just on the Great Lakes but throughout this great Nation, but I want to bring to the attention an amendment that we are going to have a little bit later here, the Upton amendment, which I believe the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is going to accept and be even part of his amendment. Anyway, I have had the pleasure of working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), my colleague and friend, on this amendment. I would like to maybe take a moment here and highlight the importance and need for the Upton amendment which would help to bring to light the current problem with the Federal Government's assistance for transferring lighthouses. We have probably more lighthouses on the Great Lakes than anywhere else in this Nation. It helps to tell the story of our maritime history. They stand as a testament to the thousands of mariners who lived and died on these Great Lakes and to those who dedicated their lives to guiding them home safely. The modern technology is replacing the use of the lighthouses for navigational purposes. But there are many groups out there dedicated to preserving these monuments for posterity and history. Unfortunately, once the Federal Government decides it no longer needs a lighthouse, there is no guarantee that the historical groups that have worked for years to maintain these structures will be able to acquire them, even though the group may have spent thousands of dollars and hours restoring the lighthouses and maintaining the property. They are not given that go-ahead to take the transfer from the Coast Guard as to the physical assets. While we cannot change the system under this current bill, what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is trying to do through his amendment and our support we are now considering, this amendment will help highlight the problem and, at the very least, ask the Coast Guard to provide us some advice and technical assistance for the organizations that want to preserve our maritime heritage. I hope this will further the dialogue to change the way in which the Federal Government transfers the lighthouses, and I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the Upton amendment and to adopt that amendment. And in final, I hope H.R. 820, the Coast Guard authorization bill, is transferred and approved by this House and we have a strong vote on it to show our support for the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying Visclosky legislation, H.R. 975. It is necessary for this Congress to act to bring fairness to the steel industry, fairness in our trade policies. I support open trade markets, but only fair trade, not free trade. In the 1980's the steel industry came under heavy assault by countries dumping their steel here in the United States. The United States did nothing. We almost lost our steel industry. In my district, we mine iron ore, and we make iron ore pellets. To make the steel, Mr. Speaker, we need the iron ore pellets. Without our iron mines, there is no steel industry in the United States. In the 1980's, prior to the illegal dumping, there were over 4500 miners in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Today our mines employ less than 2,200 miners. We cannot absorb any more losses. That is why Sunday I joined approximately 2,000 of my friends in Negaunee, Michigan, to stand up for steel. I want to see this and other anti-steel dumping legislation come to the floor of this House for a vote. Now I have heard some Members say that they are reluctant to vote for this bill because they do not want to be perceived as anti-free trade. The question is not about free trade, it is about fair trade. I say it is time to stand up for fair trade. Join us and stand up for our miners and steelworkers so they can rebuild the financial security they are fighting hard to achieve. Stand up for the steel companies who have worked to be the best steel producers in the world. Stand up for the workers and industries across a broad segment of our economy who need to see us get tough with foreign countries who have betrayed our good-faith efforts to promote open and fair trade. It is time to stand up for our constituents, stand up for our communities, stand up for the Iron Range, stand up for steel and stand up for America. Vote yes on H.R. 975.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 540, The Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments. I am an original co- sponsor of this legislation and want to thank Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Bliley for their support of this measure. In addition, I want to thank Mr. Davis of Florida for his hard work as well as the Democratic Ranking Members Mr. Dingell and Mr. Brown. Mr. Speaker, for senior citizens a nursing home is a home. Our Nation's elderly or disabled should not have to worry that they will be evicted from their nursing homes, merely because they are on Medicaid. This bill will prevent incidents, like the one in Florida, where a nursing home lied to the residents and their families about undertaking renovations as a pretext for evicting their Medicaid residents. Some of my colleagues have voiced concerns during the markup in committee that since we repealed the Boren amendment, States could readjust their payments to pay nursing homes less than the cost of service. I would be very concerned if this would occur, because the Governors lobbied Congress to repeal the Boren amendment, based on a promise they would not lower rates below reasonable payments. However, I agree with my colleagues that we need to be vigilant in watching whether States lower their Medicaid payments to unreasonable levels and believe we should take action if that occurs. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Beverly Bodem, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 106th Representative District, which is comprised of four counties in my congressional district. First elected to the House in 1990, Bev Bodem has just concluded her service in that body 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 hard-working and well-respected public servant out of office. Bev Bodem was known especially for her constituent service and for paying attention to the people in her northern Michigan district. These efforts cut across party lines, and Bev was willing to work arm and arm with me on issues that affected the people she was elected to serve. One of the issues which she successfully tackled was the problem faced by resort operators and other tourism-based industries in her district, a district which straddles the northern tip of Lower Michigan to touch both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, Because the state's school year began before Labor Day, resorts, restaurants and other tourism businesses lost much of the summer help. Students themselves had to leave good summer jobs before the official end of the tourist season. Bev worked hard to adjust the school year to begin after Labor Day, benefitting employers, employees, and the many guests and visitors to our beautiful state. Bev Bodem has been involved in her district and her community in many ways outside of her elected office. Such organizations as the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Alpena, the Thunder Bay Arts Council, the Alpena Lions Club, the Alpena General Hospital Auxiliary and the League of Women Voters have benefited from her willingness to serve and work for the betterment of her community. Bev, her husband Dennis and daughter Jennifer, a school teacher, always presented a living picture of a warm, friendly and proud family of public service to all northern Michigan. Bev always demonstrated the ``best'' of politics by working hard for all the people of her district, and she did so with a warm, friendly smile on her face. It was obvious she enjoyed her legislative career, and her constituents, enjoyed having her as their representative. The people of northern Michigan will miss Bev Bodem as the state representative, and I will miss working with her.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Allen Lowe, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 105th Representative District, which includes five counties in my congressional district. First elected to the House in 1992, Allen Lowe has just concluded his service in that body 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 our of office a dedicated public servant who was deeply concerned about the welfare of his constituents. I know that Allen traveled extensively throughout his district, because I pride myself on returning to my district each week to participate in community events, and many times I found Allen attending the same events. Allen Lowe was a legislator with deep convictions, and although I did not always agree with his position on issues, I have always had the greatest respect for the way in which he presented and defended these convictions. Like myself, Allen was a graduate of Cooley Law School. Like myself, he was a pro-life legislator. And like myself, he was not afraid to challenge Michigan's governor on issues that he believed would be detrimental to his northern Michigan constituents, despite that fact that Allen and the governor were members of the same political party. Allen brought to his job a broad involvement in community issues. He has been a teacher and school administrator, and he involved himself in activities and organizations that served his Michigan district, including the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Camp Grayling Conservation Club, and the Friends of Hartwick Pines. I will miss doing parades with him, debating issues, and, as always, working with him on issues of importance to his state representative district. I believe the people of the 105th Representative District were well- served by Allen Lowe.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, a distinguished public servant recently stepped down from a lifetime working on behalf of the people of Michigan. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when one considers the fact that Frank Kelley served 37 years as Michigan's attorney general, one might almost say it was two lifetimes worth of work, not one, that Kelley spent in his effort to bring economic and environmental justice to the lives of the working men and women of Michigan. A Democrat, Frank Kelley served with five Michigan governors, Republicans George Romney, Bill Milliken and John Engler, and fellow Democrats John Swainson, who originally appointed Kelley to fill a vacancy, and Jim Blanchard, who gave him the nickname the Eternal General. Let me quote from a Detroit Free Press editorial of December 27, which spotlighted the fighting spirit of Frank Kelley and summed up--if such a summation is really possible--the 37-year career of this law enforcement legend. ``Kelley likes to say that he was a consumer champion before anyone heard of Ralph Nader, and that he had an environmental division, `when most people didn't know whether it was spelled with an e or an i.' He regularly went after Michigan utilities in rate-hike cases like a pit bull after sirloin. ``He was outraged by charities that pocketed more money than they spent on good works, by retailers whose price at the scanner didn't match the price on the shelf, and by all the quick-buck ways unscrupulous and uncaring promoters could scam the poor and the unwary. ``He understood that the small ways in which people are cheated, stiffed, disappointed and betrayed add up to something big and corrosive. He knew that by protecting the common folk against such frauds, maybe you could keep people believing in the possibilities of justice and good government.'' That is a powerful theme for a life's work, Mr. Speaker. We can glimpse in a few words a man who understood the deceptions that can be perpetrated on the elderly in their homes with fraudulent mailings or on housewives in grocery stores, and he claimed that consumer fraud cost Michigan residents more money than other crime. Public service certainly isn't over for Frank Kelley. He has already joined a new law firm in Lansing, that of Kelley, Cawthorne and Ralls, and he has been appointed by Governor John Engler to a post on the Mackinac Island State Park Commission. This 103-year-old civic body oversees the park land and the historic attractions on Mackinac Island, which make up about 83 percent of the island. The commission also oversees Colonial Michilimackinac in nearby Mackinaw City and Historic Mill Creek near Cheboygan on the Lake Huron shore. Frank Kelley's love for this beautiful island is made clear by the fact that he has already purchased his burial site there, right next to the burial site of the late Sen. Phil Hart and across the road from the grave of the late Gov. G. Mennen ``Soapy'' Williams. But that's in the future as far as a re-energized Frank Kelley, fresh from heart bypass surgery, is concerned. Right now there is new work, new challenges, in fact, new careers. Whatever he undertakes, it's certain the people of Michigan will benefit from his endeavors. I am proud to call him a friend, a constituent, a mentor and--most of all--the ``Eternal General.''

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Pat Gagliardi, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 107th Representative District, which is comprised of four counties in my congressional district. First elected to the House in 1982, Pat Gagliardi has just concluded his service in that body 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. The only downside of Pat's political career was his misfortune in being stuck with the nickname ``Gags.'' He was respected by his fellow legislators, Democrats and Republicans alike. He kept in touch with his constituents and he served them well. He was of great assistance to me when I was elected to the Michigan House in 1988, and he has been of great assistance to me in our respective offices in Lansing and Washington. In his role as Majority Floor Leader, Pat helped set the legislative agenda for Michigan in the House, and as a northern Michigan representative he fought tirelessly to make sure that his district received its fair share of funding. Throughout our careers, I have never failed to remind Pat that his hair was getting thinner, just as he has never failed to remind me that mine was getting grayer. I will always remember this banter as a symbol of our friendly cooperation, as we worked together on issues of national importance. Much of our legislative cooperation focused on issues relating to the Great Lakes. Just as my district touches three of the five Great Lakes--Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Superior--so too did Pat's district touch the same three bodies of water. This meant that issues vital to United States commerce, such as the Soo Locks, and issues of national heritage, such as Great Lakes shipwrecks, were likely to bring Pat and I, representing northern Michigan in the Michigan House and the U.S. House, into lockstep. This cooperation bore fruit. For example, in 1995, when a Michigan diver and entrepreneur announced he would market videos of the most famous shipwreck, the Edmund Fitzgerald, and when we learned that those tapes would contain footage of the bodies of seamen who died in that tragedy, Pat joined me in expressing outrage on behalf of the families still trying to reconcile themselves to the loss of their loved ones. When my legislation banning this kind of videotaping stalled in Washington, it was Pat Gagliardi who won approval for such legislation in the Michigan legislature. He is and has been a friend, a mentor, a fellow legislator and a Democratic Party leader. He has my deep respect and friendship. The people of Michigan were well-served by ``Gags.'' They will miss him. I will miss him.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Dave Anthony, a former representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from the 108th Representative District, which is comprised of three counties in my congressional district. First elected to the House in 1990, Dave Anthony has just concluded his service in that body 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. Dave succeeded me in the 108th District seat, and he has represented both the community where I grew up and the community where I and my family now live. Dave and I have always enjoyed a special relationship personally and professionally. Whether the issue was timber or roads, Dave was always ready to jump into the political and legislative arena, and he was a tireless worker for the ``Yoopers,'' those special residents of Michigan that live in the state's Upper Peninsula, the U.P. Dave's experience in politics and in constituent service was shaped by his work as the Upper Peninsula representative of Sen. Carl Levin. It should be clear from my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that Dave Anthony has spent much of his adult life in public service. Because I made the same trip so many times, I know how many long hours Dave had to log on Michigan highways, not just holding office hours within his district but also in the drive between his home community of Escanaba and the state capital of Lansing. This seven-hour sojourn served as an excellent metaphor for the physical isolation of the Upper Peninsula from the state house, and it made clear the special burden of U.P. legislators in speaking on behalf of a region that many House colleagues knew only in news stories and travel brochures. Dave, usually accompanied by his children--son Robbie and daughter Courtney--always ``light up'' political or legislative events. This summer Susie will be added to the Anthony family and will contribute mightily to the fine reputation of public service the Anthony family has given to us ``Yoopers.'' I will miss working with Dave, and the residents of northern Michigan will miss him. Dave will have a little extra time now for his favorite pastime--fly fishing--but, with his experience and commitment, I believe the people of Michigan haven't heard the last of Dave Anthony.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, in the near future several signs will be erected along the main highways entering my home town of Menominee Michigan. Those signs will advise travelers that they are entering the community whose high school has won the 1998 Class BB state football title. Those signs will be a lasting legacy of the Menominee High School team's accomplishment, but they won't begin to reveal to the passing motorist the wonderful, personal stories bound with the season- long march to the championship. Menominee is a football town, Mr. Speaker, with a gridiron tradition reaching back 105 years. Larry Ebsch, a former local newspaper editor and an inveterate sports fan, has calculated that the Menominee Maroons have played 810 games, with a winning percentage of 61.6--but not one state championship. Thousands of young men have taken the field wearing the maroon jersey, and those signs on the edge of town don't give a glimpse of those thousands of personal memories of more than 100 seasons of football. I'm sure every one of those former players had a lump in his throat and tears in his eyes thinking of the joyous welcome given to the 1998 Maroon team after their 10-hour bus ride from the Silverdome in Pontiac back to Menominee. Another great story is that of the coach himself. Ken Hofer, by Larry Ebsch's reckoning, has coached 277 of Menominee's 810 games in a career going back to 1966. His own winning percentage is 68.2, and his teams, running the 1930s-style offense known as the single wing, have averaged 17 points per game. None of those statistics reveal the great memories of great games that Ken Hofer and his teams have given Menominee fans, particularly memories ofthe rivalry between Coach Ken and his son, Coach Chris Hofer of Kingsford. The powerful Kingsford Flivvers served as an obstacle that the Maroons for years could never quite overcome. When Ken's team finally defeated Chris's team last year and Menominee advanced into the playoffs, it was evident that the Menominee team had taken the measure of its most difficult adversary and was well on its way to a championship year. That promise was fulfilled in 1998. Coach Hofer says the seeds for final victory were planted early in the season, when the team pledged itself to reach the playoffs. It was a team supremely suited to become a championship team, Mr. Speaker, because it was built around a team ego, not individual egos. This collective ego made the 1998 Maroons a team of destiny. On the first play of the first playoff game, Josh Tarbox returned the opening kickoff for a touchdown. Then the Maroon team made a quick run of 27 points in the first five minutes, signaling clearly this team was on its way to the state championship. Many Menominee residents were on hand in Pontiac for the fulfillment of the championship dream. Along with teh cheerleaders and 113 members of the marching band, a steady procession of vehicles sporting ``Go Maroons!'' stickers made the drive across to the Mackinac Bridge and the long haul down the full length of the state of Michigan to the city of Pontiac. Menominee's hallmark stong fan base was out to make an expression of confidence, love, joy, and not just a little pride in showing that a team and a town from Michigan's Upper Peninsula were a match for any downstate opponent. Here, Mr. Speaker, is the full roster of the 1998 Michigan Class BB football champions, the Menominee Maroons: Head Coach Ken Hofer, Assistant Coach ``Satch'' Englund, Assistant Coach Dale Vanduinen, Assistant Coach Joe Noha, Manager Bob Anderson, and players Jim Anderla, Adam Bebo, Jordan Beck, Andrew Bray, Nick Brukardt, Drew Buyarski, Bromley Carlson, Adam Clark, Scott Demille, Nick Dessart, Matt Dionne, David Eaton, Tom Emmes, Bob Fifarek, Charles Hanson, Mike Hubert, Isaac Johnson, Doug Kamin, Mike Klitzke, Kris, Lavigne, Brandon Lemery, David Lescelius, Byron Lundquist, Aron Mars, Allan Mars, Mike Merrill, Jesse Miller, Shane Mundt, Nash Myers, Nick Nerat, Dale Olsen, C. J. Paasch, Pat Palmquist, Nathan Parrette, Nathan Patzke, Scott Polzin, Adam Racine, Scott Ries, Todd Roach, Randy Ruleau, Jeremy Sallgren, Mike Schultz, Rich Shatusky, Kevin Smith, Richie Smith, Josh Tarbox, Trevor Thomas, Nick Thompson, Erich Voigt, Tim Vojcihoski and Justin Wozniak.