Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill merely reinforces current Federal policy that the administration, dispensation, or distribution of a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting a suicide is not authorized by the Federal Controlled Substance Act. We make clear that the Attorney General, in implementing the Controlled Substance Act, shall not recognize any law permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia. Now, this legislation has reflected many months of hard work to bring the hospice groups on board to support this legislation. And not only the National Hospice Organization. But the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pain Management, American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians all support this legislation. Now, despite all the claims made on the floor by the opponents here, this bill really does three things. It promotes pain management and palliative care. It does not create any new Federal standard concerning the controlled substances under the Controlled Substance Act with respect to assisted suicide. We do not put forward any new standard. And it does override reliance on Oregon's Death With Dignity Act as a defense, we do not repeal it, but as a defense to any action pursuant to the Controlled Substance Act. If I may, one of those who supports this legislation, C. Everett Koop states, and I would like to quote from his statement to us, he says, ``Clearly, controlled substances, such as narcotics, have very legitimate and important uses in modern medicine, not least in alleviating the suffering of dying patients. Just as clearly, Government has legitimate interests in ensuring that those substances are never intentionally used to take a human life. Physicians who are entrusted by the Federal Government with the privilege of using these potentially dangerous drugs in their practice should be the first to understand the need for laws ensuring their proper use. Their own ethical code instructs them always to use medications only to care, never to kill.'' C. Everett Koop, in endorsing our legislation, goes on and states that this bill strikes the right balance by promoting the much-needed role of federally regulated drugs for pain relief while reaffirming that they should not be abused to assist patient suicide. A better understanding of the difference between trying to kill pain and trying to kill patients will be of great help to law enforcement authorities, to physicians, and especially to patients themselves. Now, if we take a look at our legislation that we have before us, H.R. 2266, there has been all these claims that law enforcement officials will be questioning the doctor's intent in using controlled substances for pain. That is not the case. That is not even close to what this bill purports to do. Using drugs to assist suicide is clearly different from using them to control pain. Causing a patient's death usually requires a sudden massive overdose of a potentially dangerous drug. Pain control involves the carefully adjusting dosage until it achieves relief of pain with a minimum amount of side effects for the patient. This gradual adjustment of the dosage is exactly what must be avoided if one's intent is to kill, because patients quickly build up a resistance to side effects, such as suppression of breathing. The intentional assistance in suicide is already contrary to State law and State licensing practices across this great Nation. This bill creates no new standard, no new law of the States. Even in the few States that do not clearly ban assisted suicide by criminal law, the practice is clearly contrary to medical and also to ethics and licensing standards. And if it is contrary to licensing standards, therefore, it is contrary to the Controlled Substance Act, which denies a license, a registration to anyone who has lost his or her own State license. So the point being that all this about we are going to put in new intent is simply not true. Now, let me just make a few comments if I may on the broader issue of federalism that we have heard a lot about. H.R. 2260 does not preempt Oregon's law legalizing assisted suicide. Its only legal effect is we forbid the use of narcotic drugs which are federally controlled for that purpose. On a broader issue of federalism, Oregon has the right to say that there will be no State penalties for certain conduct. But that does not mean that Oregon can prevent the Federal Government from restricting the use over federally controlled substances. Registration of a physician under the Controlled Substance Act is a matter entirely separate from a physician's State license to practice medicine. Therefore, the revocation of a registration only precludes a physician from dispensing controlled substances under the Controlled Substance Act. It does not preclude that physician from dispensing other prescription drugs or in his continued medical practice. And because the Federal Controlled Substance Act requires prescriptions to be for legitimate medical purpose to be valid by allowing this practice, the Federal Government is making a judgment that each and every one of those suicides was performed for legitimate medical purpose. So it is well within the power of the Federal Government to say that these Federal drugs are not being used for the purpose of killing people, notwithstanding State law. There is no reason why our tax dollars and our Federal law enforcement personnel must be drafted into assisting Oregon's dangerous experiment in assisted suicide. I hope that our colleagues will reject the arguments and vote for H.R. 2260. Let us end assisted suicide and let us relieve pain. I hope they vote yes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. I am proud to have introduced this legislation with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) of the Committee on the Judiciary. This legislation is cosponsored by 150 bipartisan Members of this House. This legislation amends the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that doctors and other licensed health care professionals who dispense, distribute and administer pain control drugs for legitimate medical purposes of alleviating a patient's pain or discomfort are permitted to do so even if the use of these drugs may increase the risk of death. This bill also reinforces current Federal policy that the administration, dispensation or distribution of a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting in a suicide is not authorized by the Controlled Substances Act. We make clear that the Attorney General in implementing the Controlled Substances Act shall not recognize any State law permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia. This legislation reflects the hard work of many, many people and many organizations. We have brought the hospice organizations on board to support this legislation. In addition to the National Hospice Organization, this bill is supported by the American Medical Association, Hospice Association of America, American Academy of Pain Management, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians and C. Everett Koop. Some organizations and Members as we have heard today are concerned that this bill would chill the doctor's ability to prescribe pain medication. Nothing could be further from the truth. Currently, doctors run afoul of the Controlled Substances Act if their actions cause or contribute to the fatal or near fatal overdose of drugs. In essence, the current standard for enforcement by the DEA is whether or not the use of controlled substances by a doctor served a legitimate medical reason. That is the standard. The bill makes clear that the Controlled Substances Act allows doctors to administer drugs for the purpose of relieving pain. This has always been the Federal policy and it remains the Federal policy under this legislation. If the critics would examine the first sentence of section 101 of the bill, they will see that the bill provides for a safe harbor for aggressive treatment of pain, even if the treatment increased the risk of death. The second sentence of the same provision limits the safe harbor, because without it people could always claim they were assisting suicide in the treatment of pain. I urge my colleagues to listen to the criticism and compare it to the actual language of the bill and I am confident that my colleagues are inaccurate who criticize this bill. H.R. 2260 does a lot more than provide a safe harbor for the treatment of pain. Last year in the Committee on Commerce, we debated the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. Many Members expressed concern that the lack of palliative care in this country was responsible for the helplessness that many chronically ill patients feel that lends to assisted suicide. The bill addresses those concerns as we amend the Public Health Services Act to authorize the development and advancement of scientific understanding of palliative care. The agency is directed to collect and disseminate protocols and evidence- based practices for palliative care with priority for terminally ill patients. The bill also amends the Public Health Services Act by authorizing a program for education and training in palliative care. This bill ends assisted suicide and relieves pain. This legislation makes sense. It makes clear and again reinforces the current Federal policy that under the Controlled Substances Act, the distribution of a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting in suicide is illegal. The legislation gives physicians the ability to treat patients, to provide palliative care and increase our understanding of palliative care. The bill reinforces the written policy of the Federal Government and the administration, and I quote from that policy, that it ``strongly opposes the practice of physician-assisted suicide and would not support the practice as a matter of Federal policy.'' What we are doing here is reinforcing Federal policy that has always been on the books. Vote for the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Stand up for palliative care for terminally ill patients and their families and stand up against assisted suicide. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, do not use red herring program. We are talking about the COPS program here. Let us stick to the COPS program that we are talking about. To throw in Social Security is disingenuous to their side and to the senior citizens back home.

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

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying conference report on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I oppose this bill because it drastically cuts one of our most important crime prevention programs we have today, the COPS program. Since its creation in 1994, the COPS program has awarded over $6 billion in grants to law enforcement agencies nationwide. And in May of this year, the program has funded its 100,000th police officer, a year and a half ahead of schedule and $2.5 billion below the authorized funding. These officers work with the communities to fight crime in our cities, our suburbs, and even in the vast rural district of my northern Michigan district. The COPS program not only adds these officers to the front line to fight crime, it funds important community prosecution, crime prevention, and law enforcement technology initiatives. These programs are crucial to ensuring that our families live in a safe community. Crime rates have been falling over the last several consecutive years, and we cannot now rest on our laurels. We need to build on the success of the COPS program. And it is successful. Local law enforcement officials from all over the country will tell us that the COPS program is critically important to their ability to reduce crime. The COPS program works well, and that is why it is supported by every major law enforcement organization in the United States, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Governors' Association. The President, who recognizes the importance of this community policing program in reducing crime, has requested $1.3 billion for the COPS program. Instead, unfortunately, the conference committee does not meet the President's request in the need of law enforcement, especially in the COPS in School program. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores our communities' urgent call for more police officers in the streets and in our schools to fight crime and violence. I will vote in favor of safe communities and against the majority's attempt to roll back our successful battle against crime. Vote against the bill and the rule.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I may, to answer the question of the gentleman. The President's request was $1.3 billion. And I agree, they did put in 725. That is about half of it. The COPS program is more than just police officers. It is COPS in School, it is the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative, community policing to combat domestic violence, anti-gang initiative. Those programs have not been adequately funded to meet the President's request. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on that issue. I wish we had more funding for it.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, those programs that the gentleman mentioned are good programs, and they have been funded in the past. Our quarrel here, our dispute is that we want them all funded to the level requested by the President, not what Senator Biden said, but what the President requested.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I have 15 pages of grants in COPS and equipment that have been given to the First Congressional District in Michigan. And, therefore, whether they are the First Congressional District in Michigan or Kentucky or wherever, under the totality of funding for the COPS program, they would be satisfying their local law enforcement needs.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 748, is a noncontroversial measure that will simply make a technical correction to the act that established the Keweenaw National Historic Park. Although this measure might be considered insignificant when compared with many of the other pieces of legislation considered in this body, H.R. 748 is very important to the people, the culture, and the history of Michigan's upper peninsula and especially to the Keweenaw peninsula. H.R. 748 would facilitate the appointment of the Keweenaw National Historic Park Advisory Commission for this park located in my district. This correction will help the commission assume a greater role in the development of the park. The Keweenaw peninsula at one time, Mr. Speaker, was a flourishing economic region in the center for copper mining. This remarkable copper mining history is matched by the extensive commercial fishing and maritime history of the massive Lake Superior which surrounds the peninsula. The splendor and the people of the Keweenaw peninsula rival many, if not most, of the national parks and monuments throughout our Nation. I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for expediting the consideration of this legislation. I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the ranking subcommittee Democrat, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero- Barcelo) the resident commissioner for Puerto Rico for their assistance. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 748 is very important to the future of the Keweenaw peninsula and the preservation of its rich and extensive history, and I wish to thank my colleagues for their support of this measure.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2130, the Hillory T. Varias Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999. As many of my colleagues know, with my background in law enforcement, I have been concerned with the problem of drug abuse and date rape. In fact, the first bill that I ever passed in the U.S. Congress in 1993 was the Chemical Diversion Act of 1993, which wiped out cat or methcatadone, as we call it. But in addition to this and other efforts, we are here today on H.R. 2130, as amended. We did a lot of work in committee. We put my substitute as the committee bill, and it is a product of a lot of compromise worked out by numerous parties in the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary to address the concerns and needs of both law enforcement and patients. By scheduling GHB, we will be giving the Drug Enforcement Agency strong controls over the drug and allow them to combat the rampant abuse of this drug which we are currently seeing. Just a few months ago, five Lake City teenagers were brought into the emergency room in convulsions and described as comatose due to the overdose of GHB. Even more recently, October 1 of this year, article right here about eight Ann Arbor University of Michigan students up in the hospital over the weekend because of taking GHB that was slipped into their drinks while they were out partying in Ann Arbor. Not only in Michigan, Mr. Speaker, but all over the country this drug is spreading in popularity. I know my colleague, from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), estimated 90 people. Even modest estimates put it at 32 people have died from exposure to this drug, most of them because it has been dangerously mixed with alcohol. Countless others have overdosed or suffered rape as a result of this unpredictable and uncontrolled substance. Furthermore, GHB is one of the first drugs in which the recipe for manufacture at home was widely available over the Internet. People were literally cooking up the drug in their house by obtaining the ingredients and instructions over the Internet. H.R. 2130 addressed this issue by requiring tracking and reporting of possible misuse of GBL and other precursor chemicals. Finally, the bill requires the Department of Justice to develop a forensic test to aid law enforcement officials in determining when GHB or a GHB-related compound is involved in a criminal activity. This will be helpful to law enforcement officials who currently have no way of determining GHB's involvement in a crime or situation without laboratory testing. This bill also recognizes that well-designed legislative efforts should not throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. By this, I mean that the abusive use of GHB we have been focusing on should not prevent possible legitimate or beneficial uses of this drug. For example, GHB has shown considerable promise for the treatment of narcolepsy. Specifically, this drug could benefit the approximately 30,000 people who suffer from a form of cataplexy or a sudden loss of muscle control. Good public policy recognizes these patients and the important research which is being done attempting to address their serious medical concerns. H.R. 2130 places GHB into Schedule I; but when it is approved by the FDA for medical use, it will then move to a Schedule III with Schedule I criminal penalties. It allows an exemption from the security requirements imposed for Schedule I controlled substances, which will allow the manufacturers of medical-grade GHB to continue their research without the need to construct an expensive vault for storage of the product. This bill also allows patients to receive their drugs directly from the manufacturer, because it places a medically-approved GHB drug automatically into Schedule III. Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has gone into reaching this bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) for her work on this issue. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management for holding the first hearing on this matter, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) who were crucial in moving this bill through the Committee on Commerce. Finally and most heartfelt, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) for working with us on our side to move this bill. I urge the House to pass this bill so we can prevent more deaths from the misuse of this dangerous substance, and I urge the other body to move this legislation expeditiously.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Hall, and Representative Morella for their work on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak today on H.R. 1551, the Civil Aviation Research and Development Authorization Act of 1999. My concern with the Federal Aviation Administration is the lack of consistency in its criteria for judging which airports are deserving of radar. I have trouble understanding how some airports are deemed deserving of a radar tracking system, and some are not. It appears to be arbitrary. H.R. 1551 is a very important bill about aviation research and development. It seeks to fund the Federal Aviation Administration's civil aviation R&D programs for FY 2000 and 2001. This bill has the capacity to assist the many small- to medium-sized airports that do not have radar capability by demonstrating conclusively how much more effective a radar system is over visual guidance. I'm very concerned about the numerous busy small airports in America that do not have radar capability, and believe there is a real need for a pilot project to effectively illustrate the need for radar in such facilities. A radar system is desperately needed for Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City. Out of the top eleven airports in Michigan, Cherry Capital ranks third in the number of flight operations per hour, yet of these eleven airports, Cherry Capital is the only one not served by local radar. Located next to Lake Michigan, weather conditions at this airport can change in seconds, reducing visibility to zero. It is unbelievable that the airport with the third most operations per hour in Michigan and adverse weather conditions still has controllers in the tower landing planes with binoculars! It is a matter of luck that there has never been a mid-air collision at this airport. The committee report accompanying H.R. 1551 expresses great concern over inclement weather conditions at our nation's airports. I quote ``The Committee recognizes that weather is the single largest contributor to delays and a major factor in aircraft accidents and incidents.'' I agree. As one might imagine, weather plays an extremely prominent role at the Traverse City airport due to its proximity to Lake Michigan. Sudden and severe snow and ice storms are commonplace. The potential for accidents would be immeasurably reduced by the use of radar. Along with severe weather, we must also factor in pilot error. On July 4, 1998 a Czech-made jet trainer aircraft went down over Lake Michigan, taking with it two men. This aircraft was never recovered. The closest radar facility was in Minneapolis, and was unable to accurately pinpoint the location where the plane went down. If Cherry Capital had a radar, the outcome of the search and rescue could have been very different.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act. I would like to commend Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Evans on their hard work on this bill, and their work on behalf of America's veterans. I have a small VA medical facility in my district, Iron Mountain Veterans Medical Center. Under existing law, VA could arbitrarily close this facility, and have come close to doing so in the past. H.R. 2116 would provide protections not available under current law. It would require VA to involve veterans' service organizations, employee unions, and other interested parties. It would require VA to submit the plan and justification to Congress and allow a waiting period of 45 days. These provisions provide for far greater protection than under current law, and allow for the community and individual input which is lacking in current proceedings. Other notable provisions in H.R. 2116 address issues which have been neglected for too long. Long-term care is expanded; VA's authority to make grants to assist homeless veterans is extended; the criteria for awarding grants to building and remodeling state veteran's homes has been reformed; VA is directed to cover emergency costs for uninsured veterans; it provides for sexual trauma counseling; provides for chiropractic care; it will give the VA access to a portion, if funds are recovered from tobacco companies, to compromise for its costs of tobacco-related illnesses; and it establishes a new health care enrollment category for non-disabled military retirees eligible for Tricare which essentially guarantees these military retirees health care. The innovative provisions in this bill which make it so responsive to those veterans who have served our country so well is deserving of our support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act.

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, as I begin, first let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for their help and understanding on this very important amendment, to the residents of my district and to a number of other congressional districts throughout the country. It concerns the shipment of nuclear material containing weapons-grade plutonium from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Chalk River, Canada. The Department of Energy has proposed to ship fuel rods manufactured from plutonium, formerly used in nuclear weapons, across the West and the Midwest including St. Louis, Chicago, and a number of other population centers. Behind me is a map of the route DOE has chosen. At the outset let me say that it is, it is in the United States strategic interests to decrease the oversupply of weapons-grade plutonium in this country and Russia. Furthermore, I agree that it is important to maintain a partnership with Russia to encourage the destruction of their plutonium. However the process, the process that has been used to determine a route which the MOX fuel will take has been completely inappropriate and without congressional or public input. The DOE prepared an environmental assessment, an EA, on the project which was distributed to only 52 residents in the State of Michigan for comment, none of whom live near the two bridges where the material will be transported. Although DOE staff informed some congressional staff that more people were notified of the EA, they could provide no records of such input. The decision was made without a public hearing in Michigan. Even when the Michigan governor sought public hearing, DOE denied this request. None of the emergency response crews along the route have been notified of the shipment. One emergency response coordinator in my district stated there is no plutonium chapter in his disaster response manual. Who has the responsibility, the jurisdiction, the liability and evacuation authority in case there is a transportation accident? The EA examined seven routes to Canada that would be appropriate for the transportation of this material. DOE staff explained that the Canadian Government objected to two of the routes because they traveled through the golden triangle of heavily industrialized area in Canada. Canada objected to a third route due to concern that the police vehicle accompanying the fuel would not be allowed to transit an Indian reservation along the route. Canadians and the Canadian native tribes can object to the route, but U.S. citizens and Native American Indians cannot. I would point out that the proposed route will travel over three of the five Great Lakes, the world's largest supply of fresh water and one of our country's greatest natural resources. The proposed route would pass along a minimum of four Native American tribes in my district. The DOE's own environmental assessment ranks the Sault Ste. Marie route, the one that is here on the map in the red, as both the second highest- risk route, the second highest exposure level and the second longest in distance of miles traveled. Although the DOE argues that there is minimal amount of risk associated with the transport of this material, the risk was obviously high enough that the Canadian Government did not want it to go through their golden triangle. If the route is the second riskiest, then why is it chosen? Furthermore, the Mackinac Bridge where it will have to cross Lake Huron and Lake Michigan is undergoing maintenance, the same reason why the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, was removed from consideration. If one route is chosen because a bridge is under repair, then why would DOE choose the Mackinac Bridge, the world's largest suspension bridge, which is undergoing maintenance as a suitable route? My amendment would just simply delay the decision to choose the transportation route until there has been adequate opportunity for public comment on a particular route and the citizens, Members of Congress, governors and emergency response personnel have an opportunity to ask questions. The Canadian Government is affording their citizens the opportunity for comment, and we should demand our citizens have the same rights. I agree it is important to dispose of the excess U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons material; however, I believe the process for determining the route should be made after, only after, the public has been notified of the proposed route and Department of Energy has solicited comments about the selection and to answer our questions. I urge my colleagues, and I urge the leadership on this floor here today to support my amendment requiring, just requiring, a public hearing before choosing the route for this plutonium shipment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for the opportunity to present this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and others for their interest in the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center and thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his efforts on this behalf here. This facility is in my district. In Michigan, my congressional district has more veterans than anyone else. The Iron Mountain Medical Center is the second largest acute care facility in the patient service area covering an area of 25,000 square miles. So veterans from the upper peninsula, northern Wisconsin, and other geographic areas depend on a full range of services at the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center. Now, earlier this year, as was pointed out, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, myself, and others will have joined in because they are going to cut the last acute care beds in this area. We have spoken with VA officials, and they have told us that the beds will not be cut. It is interesting to note that this bill does not call for any cuts in beds or services. Despite the last amendment, we in rural areas are concerned about proposed cuts. It seems like, as soon as the VA faces a crunch, they always look to the rural areas, and we are the ones to get hit first. So a primary concern for veterans and their families, as has been pointed out, is the geographic remoteness of the area and the vast distances that are required to travel for care. For instance, if Iron Mountain was closed, the next closest VA facility is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Some of my veterans would have to travel 500 miles one way just to get services from the VA. So not only is it an unnecessary hardship, but potential serious danger to their health as they are trying to move back and forth. I am pleased to note, and the way I understand it, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, H.R. 2116, contains provisions which may actually be favorable to rural facilities such as Iron Mountain, because H.R. 2116 would require the Veterans Administration to maintain the current level of service while at the same time encouraging long- term reform.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin will continue to yield, H.R. 2116 would encourage long-term reform, improve access through facility realignment, eligibility reform, and enhance revenues. It is vitally important that the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center remain strong, and any reduction in service would be fairly detrimental to those who have served our country for so long. Again, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all the rest who worked together. We look forward to continue to work with him to ensure our Nation's veterans receive the health care they earn and deserve and to ensure there is no reduction in services at the Iron Mountain VA center.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Senate amendments to this legislation, which offer assistance to the steel and iron ore industries; most importantly, the workers, the families, and communities who depend on these industries. I do not have any steel manufacturers in my district. I have iron ore mines. In 1920, we had over 4,500 people employed in the iron mines in northern Michigan. Then came the illegal dumping in the 1980s. Today we have less than 2,200. Just this week it was announced that the last two mines will close, the two in northern Michigan and one in Minnesota, and they will be closed for at least 10 weeks because of depressed market conditions for iron ore pellets because of illegal steel imports. For at least 10 weeks, the United States will not produce one iron ore pellet to make domestic steel. If we do not take action to prevent steel dumping, encourage the use of our domestic steel products, while offering some relief to our industries, there will be no more iron ore mines, there will be no more domestic steel industry here in the United States.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rose just about a year ago to join my colleagues in offering a one minute on a proposed patients' bill of rights. We were discussing this topic in the House because the leadership of the majority, both in the House and the other body, had finally entered into the public discussion on adoption of a Patients' Bill of Rights. I regret to say that my optimism was misplaced. I am sorry to say 1 year and 2 weeks later, we still have not passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. Since that time, public clamor for a real, genuine Patients' Bill of Rights has only grown. The public recognizes that, like the first ten amendments to the Constitution, there are real people and real rights that need to be protected. Medical decisions which affect the very livelihood of people and their quality of life must be made by doctors, in consultation with patients, not insurance accountants. Patients must be able to hold HMOs liable, accountable, for decisions that affect their lives and the quality of life, not some travesty of an internal review process.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant who has served her small northern Michigan community of Caspian for almost a quarter of a century. A reception for Rosalie King tonight celebrates her many services to the residents of Caspian. Although I can't be at that event, I'd like to share some thoughts with you and House colleagues on her work. Let me first remark on the kind of community in which Rosalie has worked since 1978. Much of northern Michigan was settled in the late 1800s. Most of these towns in northern Michigan were part of an early boom in such industries as mining--both copper and iron mining--and timber. By the turn of the century, many of these settlements had become communities. In the next quarter century services, such as water and wastewater treatment and brick streets, were added to these many small towns. The problem faced by many of these towns is the aging of this basic infrastructure. Water pipes no longer provide pressure sufficient for adequate fire protection, and in some cases they sustain failures because of frost heaving or age-related problems that force continuous and expensive repairs. More important, with the boom years far behind, basic infrastructure does not permit the development of industrial parks or the rehabilitation of downtowns that can be the basis for economic redevelopment. It has been in the area of pursuing grants for this kind of community maintenance and redevelopment that Rosalie King has excelled. As the city manager of Caspian she has successfully won millions in grants and equally successfully administered them, making future grant acquisition more likely. I have had the pleasure of being able to work with the dynamic community leader who has fought so long and hard for the betterment of the citizens she serves. Rosalie personifies the best of what local leadership can be and she has demonstrated the best that programs like Rural Development can be in terms of helping small communities maintain a quality of life and an ability to maintain and even attract economic investment. Other northern Michigan communities look to Caspian as an inspiration and a model for community pride and leadership. But Rosalie King has been more to her community than a public official. She is one of those rare individuals who has been able to give complete dedication to all areas of her life, family, church and community. In addition, she has been interested and involved in recreation programs, especially hockey. I know Rosalie will continue to dedicate her many talents to the friends and neighbors that make up the Caspian community. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to join me in this salute to Rosalie King, a dynamic city manager, as she brings to a close a long distinguished career.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, last October you and our colleagues gave unanimous consent to my House 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 of Representatives, speaking with one voice, asked that procedures be established to guarantee that any sale or diversion be fully negotiated and approved by representatives of the United States Government and the Government of Canada in consultation with effective States and provinces. I want to remind our colleagues of that House action, Mr. Speaker, because there is another threat to the Great Lakes, one posed by drilling for gas and oil in and under the waters of this great natural resource. Mr. Speaker, we are not being alarmists. Water diversion and drilling for gas and oil are real threats to one of the world's most valuable resources. Consider, Mr. Speaker, these facts. As I list each item, I want you to think about each of these facts in terms of potential impact on our Great Lakes. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water; 97.5 percent of that water is sea water. Only 2.5 percent of the surface water is fresh water. The Great Lakes contains 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water, one-fifth of the Earth's fresh water resources. 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 about 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 are currently experiencing water shortages, and more than 100 are deemed to be in condition of acute water scarcity. The global demand for water is doubling every 21 years. Citizens of the United States and Canada use and consume more than 100 gallons per day per person. Eighty percent of the fresh water used goes to agricultural production. I thank the Buffalo News for many of those 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 your attention to a quote from a World Bank report which appeared in the Buffalo News in a March 1999 story. The World Bank report predicted wars of the next century will be fought over fresh water. So are we really being alarmists? I believe not. A company in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, just one company, was given a permit last year to take up the 2.6 million gallons of water per day for 5 years from Lake Superior. I was joined by members of the Ontario parliament and the Canadian New Democratic Party in bringing public attention to this permit which was revoked by the Ontario government, but all fresh water will increasingly be eyed as a potential commodity. A Vancouver-based company, Global Water Corporation, has an agreement with an Alaskan community of Sitka to take fresh 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. Global envisions 445 tankers per year carrying fresh water to Asia. Now we 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 at this time, Mr. Speaker, that although I have mentioned China twice in my remarks, I am not attempting to invoke it as threat to our own security. China is merely a customer in need of fresh water now. The entire world will be eying our natural resource. As of today, the issue of sale and diversion of Great Lakes water and fresh water throughout this country remains unsolved. Following the House vote on my resolution, the U.S. and Canada have asked the International Joint Commission to study the issue on water diversion along the entire border from Alaska to the St. Lawrence River to Maine. Their preliminary report on diversion should be ready in August. A final report on our joint water resources should be completed early next year. Until all questions on the sale or diversion of fresh water are answered, I have introduced legislation which would place a moratorium on any sale or diversion of fresh water in this country until we have these questions answered. In the meantime, there is another threat to the Great Lakes as it is the policy of my home State of Michigan to allow drilling for gas and oil underneath the Great Lakes. Canada allows gas rigs drilling directly into Lake Ontario now. 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 flow out, to be cleared by natural flow. Lake Michigan, 99 years; Lake Huron, 60 years. Fresh water is a precious, scarce resource that needs our protection from exploitation of oil and gas companies and by sale and diversion of water.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we just heard about the GOP bill and what it claims to do. It claims to do many things which is not fiscally possible or fiscally responsible. I proposed a simple amendment at the Committee on Rules. My amendment said, no surplus, no tax breaks. We cannot follow the Republicans back to the days of budget deficits and uncontrollable spending. When there is no surplus, we cannot afford more tax breaks. We must keep our fiscal house in order. Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility. Let us not spend a surplus if it is not there. Mr. Speaker, what my amendment said, after we take care of our obligations to Social Security and Medicare for this and future generations, then certify to us what the surplus is, and then and only then do we use that surplus for tax breaks. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules would not make this amendment in order. No more raiding of the Social Security trust funds, no more raiding of the Medicare trust funds. No tax breaks until there is a surplus. Let us take care of our obligations first. Let us be honest. No surplus, no tax breaks. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Weldon-Barr amendment. Mr. Chairman, Congress did not create or permit Indian gaming when it passed IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Rather, it sought to regulate an industry that had been growing throughout the previous decade that was legally outside the scope of State regulatory powers. So now tribes can only game to the extent the State authorizes gaming within that State. For Class III gaming or casino gaming, a compact is required with the State. I have numerous casinos in my district, Indian gaming facilities. I have heard tonight about all these promises we are going to help out with the Native Americans. Well, Native Americans have been hearing these promises for over 200 years from this Congress, BIA, and Interior and it does not materialize. I still remember in my lifetime where the city fathers of the local communities would only count the Native Americans for their population base and their poverty level so they could get Government grants to put in roads, to put in water and sewer; and the water and sewer and roads never made it to the Native American reservation. Now, what has happened, at least in my district, Native Americans have the right to game, and gaming has been the only successful economic development tool many of these tribes have known. Tribes all over the country are rebuilding their infrastructure long neglected by the Federal Government and providing an increased level of social services to their own members. Are there problems? Yes, there are problems. But can they be worked out? You bet they can. Take Michigan. After IGRA was passed in 1988, we have had two different governors philosophically worlds apart politically, John Engler and Jim Blanchard. But yet they were both able to work out their differences with the Native Americans and enter into compacts. We hear all these arguments about, ``Well, jeez, if they come in and try to open up a casino, they will destroy the infrastructure of these small communities.'' I have got small communities like Christmas, Michigan, and Hessell. You cannot get much smaller than that. But underneath our compact, they get 2 percent of the profits. The State of Michigan takes another 8 percent for any problems they may cause the State of Michigan. The governor can limit the number of casinos, the governor can limit the number of slot machines, the governor can limit the type of games that are being played. The governor can limit whether or not there is ever casino gaming on a piece of land, whether it is by a school, by a church, 150 miles from their reservation. The governors can do it if they are willing to step up to their responsibility. And since 1988, the governors can deny opening casinos on any piece of property. Mr. Chairman, the two compacts we have had in Michigan have worked well. I would oppose this amendment and I would ask that we oppose prohibiting the Secretary as the arbitrator, final arbitrator before we always have to go to court. We should not always have to go to court to try to address differences. Because of sovereignty, I believe this amendment is unconstitutional, and I hope, I really hope, that we would not try to pass this amendment tonight.