Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, I would. hope he will--if he vetoes this bill we will do another bill here, and we will do it quick because I know people on both sides of the aisle do not want those small business people, those self-employed people, to go without the 24 to 30 percent exemption for their health insurance. And I would also predict to my friend from Michigan that the other side will not even try to override that veto. They would not have the guts, the nerve, the chutzpah to bring that bill back with those two provisions and try to convince the American people that this is the right policy for this country.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Last Saturday my Upper Peninsula representative, Brian Schlientz, died. Brian was 27 years old. He had courageously battled a rare form of brain cancer. His life was brief, but it was filled with church and social activities, academic and athletic achievements, and community involvement. Some would say success always came easy for Brian. But his greatest success was Brian's love of God, his family, and his country. It is difficult to articulate success as it applies to faith in God. It is difficult to describe love of family when cancer denied Brian his wedding day 3 weeks ago on March 4. For some people, it is hard to envision one's love for their country when Brian never served in the armed services; still Brian left his college studies to help me get elected to Congress in 1992. Just to help me? No, but to help his country, for Brian believed with all his heart in life. He worked so long, so hard, just so a right-to-life Democrat could be elected to the U.S. Congress. It was Brian's love of God, his family, and his country that propelled him to become an extraordinary person. Brian is survived by his parents Don and Dorothy, his twin brother Matt and Matt's wife, Tiffany, Brian's sister, Heidi, his brother-in- law, Chad, and his devoted fiancee, Kristy, many relatives and all of his many, many friends. To his family and to each of us, Brian has his own special significance. He had his own personal impact on all of us. When we gather at Northern Michigan University this Thursday for a memorial service for Brian, a university where he starred in academics and on the football field, we will all have our own personal songs, thoughts, and prayers for Brian and his family. While there is certainly sadness in our hearts, it is quickly being replaced by joy, much like this holy season of Lent in which we sacrifice and we try to cleanse our spiritual life just to experience the joy and the holy significance of Easter Sunday. So too should we all bask in the joy of Brian's life, the joy of knowing him, the joy of his love for each of us. Just think of the joy that Brian brought to each of us. As my Upper Peninsula congressional representative, Brian and I traveled together, we worked together and we prayed together. Brian was a joy to be around. You wanted to be with Brian. He brought out the best in everyone. As Brian and I would drive the vast distances between the small towns that comprise the Upper Peninsula of Michigan our discussions always seemed to turn to his love for God and the difficulty, yet the strength and the joy he found in being, and working with and for a right-to-life Democrat. Brian excelled in his position as my Upper Peninsula representative because of his love, joy that he had in God, his family, and this great country. Although he already had one bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry, Brian went back to his studies so he could become a teacher. But, Brian, you are a teacher. Brian, you have been a great teacher and for all of us, Brian, you will continue to be a great teacher. As you look down upon all of us with that huge smile upon your face, I know that you will grade us not in the classroom, not in our academic and athletic achievements, but in the joy, strength, and love that we bring to each other. For you taught us, teacher, that the joy, success, and accomplishment in life is found in one's love of God, family, and country. Thank you, Brian, for teaching us and reminding us of the secret: the success and the joy of your life.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to remind our colleagues and the American people that what we are really talking about tonight in this so-called welfare reform debate, what we are really talking about is really politics. And it is really the politics of the rich and the poor. Some of you may remember that book, the Politics of the Rich and Poor. It was written by Kevin Phillips. He was President Reagan's economic advisor. And this politics of the rich and poor that we are talking about tonight goes against children, the nutrition program. The savings that you hear so much tonight that is going to come forth from the Republican proposal is not going for the deficit. It is not going to reduce the debt. It is going to go to the tax breaks in two weeks on this floor for the big corporations and for the wealthiest of this country. So let us talk about little bit about the poor. The poor tonight are the people in Michigan, the working folks who are sending their kids to school. And after this bill goes through tomorrow, and it will go through because they have more votes than we do, 7,100 children in Michigan will be denied the nutrition program. Michigan will lose $1.5 million for nutrition programs. These are the poor in Michigan who will lose tomorrow afternoon underneath the nutrition program. But who will win? Who is going to win in this whole program? AFDC. I do not mean Aid for Dependent Children. I mean aid for dependent corporations, the rich. If you look at it, in the fiscal given to corporations as tax breaks, $167.2 billion. For each taxpayer out there listening tonight, that is $1388 is going to support corporate tax breaks, and all these dreaded programs you heard about tonight, what is it going to cost us as a country, $50 billion, $1415 for each taxpayer, three times less. But if this bill goes through and the cuts that we are going to talk about the next day or two, and we are going to turn around the savings and give it for another tax break for the rich, where does the money go? Why are we giving millions of dollars to McDonald's Corporation to sell chicken nuggets overseas as a tax break but yet we are going to cut $7 billion over five years of the school nutrition program and all these students will be denied? Why do we give Campbell's Soup millions of dollars to sell soup overseas but yet we are going to cut our children $7 billion over five years. It is the politics of the rich and the poor all right. Today we had a chance to try to correct it with Mr. Deal's bill, the Democratic bill on welfare reform. Yes, we have to do some things differently. Mr. Deal put forth a proposal that made a lot of sense and was defeated by party lines, 205 to 228, one Republican joined us. What did the Democratic bill say? It was a welfare reform bill. That means requiring and assisting people to move out of the dependency of welfare and into self-sufficiency, work. Democrats believe in tough and fair work requirements, something their bill, which is right here, 1214, never had until yesterday. At least they are learning from us. What else did the Democrat bill have? We believe that individuals need education and job training to become self-sufficient. You just do not cut them off and say, go get a job. Individuals need the opportunity to find work. Welfare needs to be linked to work. That is what the Democratic proposal meant. That is what we believe in. Unfortunately, it was defeated, strictly on party lines. So as we do this debate tonight, remember, it is the politics of the rich and the poor. The poor are those who will be cut. Their cuts will go to pay for the tax breaks for the rich. AFDC, not Aid for Dependent Children, it is aid for dependent corporations.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The other side said that Michigan would actually gain money. That is only if the bill is not revised, and your CRS report, page 1, says that is subject to a base assumption you make as long as you do not revise it. But you have revised it. Go to your bill, H.R. 1214. Go to page 122. And what do you do on the nutrition, the food block grants for these kids? You cut it 20 percent and put it in other programs. You have $6.6 billion, take away 20 percent. It is $1.3 billion. You increase the administrative costs from 1.8 percent to 5 percent, add another $334 million for administrative costs. The first year alone you cut $1.6 billion from the nutrition program. Michigan gets nailed by $1.5 million.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing problems facing our society today is domestic violence. Violence against women exists in big cities, and it also exists in small, rural communities, like those in my district in northern Michigan. For many years domestic violence was not discussed in public, because people thought it was a problem that should be dealt with from within the home. Statistics show that crimes against women are rising at a faster rate than total crime. Even more disturbing is the fact that more than two- thirds of violent crimes against women are committed by husbands, boyfriends, or acquaintances. In fact, thirty-three percent of American women who are killed, are killed by a boy friend or husband. Recently, we have had reason for hope, because President Clinton took on the fight against domestic violence. Because of his leadership and support, the Violence Against Women Act was passed into law. President Clinton is the first President to attack this problem head- on. He has created a special Violence Against Women Office at the Department of Justice to spearhead the effort to fight violence against women. Today, the President announced approximately $26 million in STOP Grants to the States to fight violence against women. I salute President Clinton's leadership in this fight, a fight which we all must join, to stop domestic violence.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we would like to have a further inquiry as to this modification. I do not believe we have seen a copy of it.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, there is objection to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. STUPAK. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, we would like to see the amendment. It has not been cleared by the minority. We have not seen it. We would like an opportunity to do that. I would ask the gentleman if he would respectfully withdraw his amendment until we have had a chance to take a look at it. Then we may be able to come back and agree to it.

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

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the GOP budget cutters are at it again. In yesterday's Congress Daily, the GOP chairman said ``I want to downsize in a way that makes sense, but is dramatic.'' Yes, the GOP is dramatic. It is dramatic to cut the children's preschool nutrition program. It is dramatic to cut the school breakfast program. It is dramatic to cut the school lunch program. It certainly is dramatic, but where does all this dramatic money go? After the GOP dramatically cuts the children's nutrition program, the money will go not to the deficit, not to reduce our debt, but it goes to those families who will get a tax break, those families who make more than $180,000 a year. Tax breaks for those families who do not worry about hot lunch or who worry about preschool nutrition programs. Oh, yes, it is dramatic. Let us reject these Republican cuts aimed at all children. While it may be dramatic, Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not make sense.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an issue brought forth by a constituent of mine, Mr. Charles Stewart, of Gladstone, MI, and to have his letter inserted into the Congressional Record. While it is not my usual practice to insert such letters into the Record, as I receive and reply to thousands of letters every year, Mr. Stewart has written in very clear terms about an issue of great concern to thousands of Americans in Michigan, and across this country. Mr. Stewart is one of the many civil service retirees whose Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) has been delayed. Mr. Speaker, every year this delay causes a budgetary crisis for thousands of our retirees. Mr. Stewart, and others, joined the civil service and signed up for a plan that was to carry them through their retirement. Now, at a crucial point, the rules of the game have been changed and Mr. Stewart, and others, are being forced to wait three months every year for the adjustment they have been promised, and have worked hard for. This is simply wrong. As Mr. Stewart's letter suggests, there is no reason why retirees should pay such a great price for the budget crunches of today. There are more equitable ways for this Congress to generate revenue without picking on a certain class of citizen. I suggest we continue looking more toward equitable and fair cuts and less toward balancing the budget on the backs of our retires. Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Stewart's letter appear directly following my remarks. Representative Bart Stupak, House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bart: For the second year in a row I have received my new year's present from Congress. No increase in my civil service annuity until April 1, 1995. Year after year as a postal employee I was penalized by Congress, and postal service management. We either received no raise, or raises that were much lower than independent studies indicated we should have been granted. As a result I worked a second job (Bay DeNoc Lure), plus some tax and bookkeeping to support my family. Now, in retirement we are still ``whipping boys'', and are expected to pay for budgetary mistakes which we did not create, and who should not be held responsible, but are being penalized. It would be easier to accept this discrimination if it was reasonable, and fair which it is not. May you and your family enjoy a very happy and prosperous New Year. Sincerely, Charles L. Stewart.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and distinguished public servant, George G. Johnson, who is retiring this month as Police Chief of Marquette, MI. George Johnson's career spans over four decades of distinguished service as a patrol officer, motorcycle officer, detective and Marquette Chief of Police. Simply put, George Johnson is one of the most respected and admired law enforcement professionals in the entire state of Michigan. His years of outstanding work are a credit to him, and an example for law enforcement professionals and public servants nationwide. After serving 6 years in the U.S. Navy, George Johnson joined the Marquette Police Department as a patrol officer in 1955. He served as a motorcycle officer until being promoted to detective in 1961. A short 3 years later, George was promoted to Chief of the Department. been a leader both in law enforcement and in the community at large. As Chief of Police, George has taken a leading role in many State and regional law enforcement associations. He has been a charter member of the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the State Traffic Committee, The Upper Peninsula Chiefs Association, and Northern Michigan University Police Advisory Council Chairman. He has served as a charter member of the Marquette County Law Enforcement Officers Association. He was also selected Upper Peninsula Officer of the Year in 1967, and recognized in 1987 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as one of the top 25 law enforcement professionals in the Nation. In 1993, Chief Johnson was chosen by his peers as employee of the Year for the City of Marquette. George's work in Marquette, with community programs and projects, has helped to improve and enrich the lives of all of his neighbors. Through his work on the Shiras Institute board of directors and other agencies and organizations, George has given his time and talent unselfishly to his community. Mr. Speaker, George Johnson epitomizes all that is great about public service. His commitment, and drive have served to make Marquette a better place. While we Northern Michigan will miss George, we want to take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude for a job well done and wish him and his family well in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this morning we have heard a lot about the Republican plan to cut $17.3 billion from the budget, the rescission package. Where are they going to cut? The Women, Infant and Children Program, school lunches, the Day Care Lunch Program. They are tough on kids. Who else are the Republicans tough on? They are going to be tough on the veterans, because they want to cut $50 million out of veterans' facilities. Those veterans who need medical help are going to lose $50 million. They are going to be tough on our senior citizens. Two million senior citizens will lose the LIHEAP Program to help them heat their homes. In my district tonight in northern Michigan it is predicted to be 20 below zero, but we are going to be tough on those people. How about housing for seniors? One million seniors will lose housing under the $17.3 billion rescission package they propose. Tough on seniors, tough on veterans, tough on kids. Where is the money going to go? Is it going to go to deficit reduction? No. Is it going to reduce the debt? No. It is going to go for the Contract With America, to pay forthe tax breaks for the wealthy, those who make more than $180,000. That is where the money is going.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. As I said, I am concerned about the impact of H.R. 1022 on the Great Lakes. As you may know, the Great Lakes shoreline covers more than 11,000 miles--a distance equal to almost 45 percent of the Earth's circumference. About 25 million people get their drinking water from the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and each day, 655 billion gallons of Great Lakes water are used for various purposes. Ninety-four percent of this water produces 20 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity by passing through hydroelectric plants. Which brings me to my next question. In 1986, a Russian-flagged ship introduced into the Great Lakes a nonindigenous species--the zebra mussel. Zebra mussels attach themselves to hard surfaces like pipes, making them very difficult to remove. They quickly gang up on a desired target, clogging water intake and distribution systems. These animals have cost municipal and industrial water facilities millions of dollars in cleanup and control costs. They've disrupted Great Lakes recreation, causing thousands of dollars in damage to boats, docks, buoys, and beaches. Over the next decade, scientists estimate that the cost of the zebra mussel invasion for Great Lakes water users could go as high as $5 billion. And they're spreading beyond the Great Lakes. The flood of 1993 has helped the mussel spread as far south as Louisiana; it pushed the zebra mussel over levees, up rivers and drainage ditches and into sewage treatment plants and other riverside facilities. Section 1201(f) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct research to find a solution to the problem of nonindigenous species like the zebra mussel, sea lamprey, and European ruffe. My question to the gentleman is: Does this bill apply to research projects conducted by NOAA?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for engaging me in a colloquy and creating this legislative history.

Mr. STUPAK. In addition to dredging activities, the Corps of Engineers has 376 projects under construction. Does this bill apply to construction projects under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers? The corps also owns or operates 273 navigation lock chambers, including one in my district--the Poe Lock System at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. Does this bill apply to the lock systems under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers?

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Bliley].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleague a series of questions that relate to the impact of this bill on the Great Lakes States, because my district has more shoreline than any other district except Alaska. As you know, the Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains approximately 12,000 miles of commercial navigation channels; it maintains 297 deep draft harbors and 549 shallow draft harbors. Under the River and Harbors Act of 1899, the Corps of Engineers issues permits to private contractors for most harbor dredging. In addition, the Corps of Engineers issues general and regional permits for dredging--for instance, in New York and New Jersey. Under title I, dealing with risk assessment, on page 8, beginning on line 5 and ending on line 9, it says that this title applies to ``any proposed or final permit condition placing a restriction on facility siting or operation under Federal laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior.'' Later in the same title, on page 25, on lines 12 and 13, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is listed as a ``covered Federal agency''; I assume for purposes of the rest of the title. My question to the gentleman is: Does this bill apply to individual, regional, or general permitting actions by the Corps of Engineers for dredging?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding, and also thank her for her leadership and allowing me to have input and assistance on this amendment. In their haste to expedite the process, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to have forgotten there are some helpful regulations needed by hunters, veterans, seniors, crime fighters, and even Members of Congress. The Collins-Stupak amendment would make some important needed corrections in this legislation. H.R. 450, the regulatory moratorium, is for the birds, but, more specifically, it is for ducks, geese, doves, woodcocks, and pigeons. In fact, it really should be renamed the Migratory Bird Safe Passage Act of 1995, because one of the consequences of the legislation is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Federal regulations would not be able to set up this year's migratory bird hunting season and bag limits. Under the provisions of the migratory bird treaty, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife allows waterfowl hunting between September 1 and March 9. Because of the moratorium that we have here today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would be hard-pressed to set the hunting season before September 1, 1995. Without this amendment, 3 million duck hunters can hang up their shotguns, States will forego $1 million in license revenue, and rural communities such as northern Michigan which depend on the hunting season will lose an aggregate total economic benefit of $3.6 billion. In Michigan's upper peninsula alone, over 5,000 duck hunters bring nearly $1 million to our economy. Further, this amendment reminds us that we should reflect on our goal for veterans. Many of the young veterans from the gulf war are suffering from a mysterious delibitating disease. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently authorized benefits for soldiers and their families to help them cope with the gulf war syndrome. The authorization, aimed at providing relief, would be considered under this legislation a burdensome regulation. I find it unconscionable that now we put forth a moratorium and turn our back on our suffering veterans. What about our seniors? HUD regulations, which will help keep drug and alcohol abusers out of senior housing complexes are now under assault. Every senior should be afforded the opportunity to live in comfort and safety in their home. The moratorium would halt this rule making process and would continue to put our Nation's seniors at risk. The Collins-Stupak amendment would allow duck hunters to hunt this year by exempting them from the rulemaking action of the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the migratory bird treaty. It provides for our veterans and it protects our seniors. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today is the 50th day of the Republicans 100-day Contract on America. Congratulations on putting forth a goal and sticking to it. It is important to have goals and objectives in our lives and in legislation. Legislative goals should be those that are achievable through a consensus with America, not goals that stick it to America. It should be a contract with all of America. We Democrats do not need a plan to stick this to that or a contract with this group against that group. Our contract has always been the same. We work hard, ensure a thoughtful, deliberate process. So let us look back at the first 50 days of the Democratic majority in 1993. By now two bills had already been signed into law: the national motor-voter bill and the family and medical leave bill, with little or no Republicans support. In the GOP first 50 days, only one bill, the Congressional Accountability Act, has been signed into law, just one, and that was with 400 Members voting for it in a bipartisan manner. Even though the score, using the GOP marker, is two to one in favor of the Democrats, let us forget the 100-day marker. But rather, let us be thoughtful, deliberate in our legislative process and that way it is not Democrats or Republicans but all of America will win.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we began the debate and amendment process on H.R. 728, the crime bill, the Republican crime bill. Those of us who opposed 728 believe all it is is one huge block grant proposal to cut and gut the Clinton program. Four months into this very successful program of putting police on the streets, Republicans want to gut the program for a block grant. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took to this well, and I described the block grant program as ``pork of Christmas past.'' We learned from the abuses in the past, in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and because of the abuses in law enforcement block grant proposals in the bill, we put in amendments that said block grant money cannot be used for tanks, armored personnel carriers, fixed-wing Well, we just started to debate yesterday and, guess what, we got ``pork of Christmas present.'' The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] wanted to make sure that law enforcement block grant proceeds would not go to be used to build roads. His amendment says to improve public safety, that it not be interpreted to use any funds appropriated under this title for the construction or improvement of highways, streets, and roads. We are trying to stop past abuses. Guess what? The amendment failed. The Republicans want to use block grant money for law enforcement for anything they want. I looked into what the Speaker said 8 months ago: If we have to choose between paying for a direct purpose such as building prisons, I can defend that. What I cannot defend is sending a blank check for local politicians across the country for them to decide how to spend it. So we are going to give them money for roads and call it law enforcement. That is what we did yesterday. Past abuses that we found: One-third of every dollar went to consultants, not for law enforcement. In a $10 billion crime bill for block grants, that is $3.3 billion; 367,000 less cops will take the streets if this proposal goes through. We want cops, not consultants. We want what Mr. Gingrich said 8 months ago to hold up today and not use it so local politicians can use it for whatever they want. Eight months ago, or 8 hours into the debate, Republicans were already starting to use money to build roads instead of putting cops on the street. Now, as we all know the old saying, roads, The road to--is paved with good intentions. We do not need good intentions. We need cops on the street where they belong. We want cops to walk the beat, we want cops, we don't want consultants. We want cops, we do not want pork. We want cops, we do not want good intentions. Today those who say they support law enforcement will have the opportunity. Mr. Schumer and Mr. Conyers will offer an amendment that says the 100,000 cops program stays as it is. You will have a chance to redeem your ways, you will have a chance to change and put police officers on the street, not to build streets and roads. So I hope that my colleagues today on the Schumer-Conyers amendment will vote ``yes'' to keep 100,000 cops in H.R. 728. Support law enforcement, support the Clinton cops program. H.R. 728, as written, is opposed by all the major police organizations: The National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs, the National Association of Police Executives, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Troopers Coalition, Police Executive Research Forum, the Police Management Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Black Police Association, National Sheriffs Association, and the Police Foundation. We are saying, leave the 100,000 cops program alone. Support the Schumer-Conyers amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in the last week I have spent a lot of time on this Floor either during special orders, morning session, or, as we have brought this bill forward, to fight for certain aspects of the bills. As a member of the Democratic crime task force and having been a police officer myself for some 12 years where I have worked the road, and I would still be there but for some injuries I received in the line of duty, I have a very strong interest in what we are doing here, and this program in particular of allowing 100,000 more police officers. When the crime bill came for the final conference report, I did not support it. I could not support all those programs in the final analysis of the crime bill last fall. But this was one I did support. Much like the so-called Contract on America, where you have six crime bills or six parts to your crime bill, I will vote for some of them, and I am going to vote against other parts of it. Your H.R. 728, I am going to vote against it because I think it is wrong to gut a program. You say you want flexibility. Or do you want police officers, is really the question. You say you are not against local control, but that we, because we oppose this bill, somehow we are against local control; we are afraid to let local people make decisions. We are not. We are afraid to allow you to make decisions on our program. Yesterday the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] offered an amendment which said we will not use money in this bill, this block grant, to build roads, and most of our friends on that side of the aisle voted to allow them to build roads with crime fighting money. Where is the crime fighting element in building a road? A police car will go up and down the road? I mean, that is where we have our problems. That is where we have differences of philosophy. The gentleman from Illinois talked about arrogance on this side. I think the arrogance comes in when you take a crime bill and allow it to be used to build roads, when we have the highway trust fund, we have local funds, we have state funds to build roads in your community. Mr. Chairman, local control, who applies for these police officers underneath the President's program? Who applies? Local officials. Do we force them to apply for this program? No. But across this Nation, every community that is less than 50,000 people, more than half have already applied for this program. No one forced them, no one said they had to. We said here is a program, apply if you would like. That is flexibility. That is local control. We did not make them apply. Look, you are going to have an opportunity later today if you want other things. It is called the Byrne grants. If you look at the current crime bill, one of the problems I had is you take Byrne grants, 282 programs, which everybody has said is a fantastic program: 1995, we have $580 million; 1996, it drops to $130 million; 1997, $100 million; 1998, $75 million; all the way down to $45 million. So later today we are going to have an opportunity to give you all the money you want for local people to apply for these programs in the Byrne grant. We will authorize $450 million for the next 5 years. Now, your leadership on that side tells us we cannot do that. Why not? Why can we not provide stable funding for 5 years in the way local people would like it? That is flexibility. We are putting forth the money for communications, wherever you want to use it for. But, no, you say we are going to oppose that program. So there is flexibility there. There is plenty of flexibility there. We made a promise 4 months ago that we would put 100,000 police officers on the street. We are trying to achieve that. Suddenly now, because there is a change in the election, you do not want that program. You are destroying the program. So where is the flexibility now? What happened in 4 months that suddenly a program that was supported in a bipartisan manner, somehow we have lost that? It is just strictly politics. And having been a police officer, I know the gentleman from North Carolina and some of the others, police officers, quite honestly are sick and tired of being played with in politics. It is a great issue to run a campaign on, but it is not fair to the police officers or the local communities to say here is the program, here is 100,000 cops over 5 years, but because of a philosophical change, we will now play politics and take the program away. Take it away. And, by the way, you can go ahead and build roads with it, as you voted to do yesterday, instead of fighting crime.

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in summation, H.R. 728, your bill right here, you want flexibility. There is not one program in there to guarantee one police officer. Not one police officer. You are going to take away the local control to apply for the Clinton COPS Program. We want cops, we want cops. We do not need politics, we do not need the so-called flexibility. You have the Byrne grants for your local control.

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.