Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I submit my statement and supporting documents in opposition to the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, in October we voted on whether to receive the Starr report and to have the Judiciary Committee define the impeachment standard on which to review these allegations and to guide us here in this debate. But the Majority Party, the Republicans, said ``No, we will not define the standard.'' So what is the standard? Did President Clinton commit ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' warranting impeachment under the Constitution? The Judiciary Committee would not tell us, so 430 legal scholars spoke up and wrote to the Speaker, and here is what they had to say, in part: We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to do with any such judgment. Rather, it expresses the one judgment on which we all agree: that the allegations detailed in the Independent Counsel's referral and summarized in Counsel Shippers's statement do not justify presidential impeachment under the Constitution. No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's determination of the meaning of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that Members of Congress would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the president for misconduct, even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high constitutional standard required for impeachment. ....It goes without saying that lying under oath is a serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this case. The House's power to impeach, like a prosecutor's power to indict, is discretionary. This power must be exercised not for partisan advantage but only when circumstances genuinely justify the enormous price the national will pay in governance and stature, if its President is put through a long, public, voyeuristic trial. The American people understand this price. They demonstrate the political wisdom that has held the Constitution in place for two centuries when, even after the publication of Mr. Starr's report, with all its extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment for the offenses alleged therein. A majority of the American people are being denied through their elected representative an opportunity to cast a vote on a bipartisan compromise--a vote of conscience to censure the President. I wish to share with the nation the letter I am sending to my constituents on this historic vote: Dear Constituent: Thank you for sharing your views, hopes, fears, and thoughts on the Articles of Impeachment pending against President Bill Clinton. My votes on impeachment were the most solemn and saddest votes I have ever had to cast. The constitutional importance, the solemn occasion, the division within the House of Representatives and indeed the nation itself cause me to pause and reflect on my personal, constitutional, national, political and family life. These were not easy votes. I read transcripts, watched the video deposition, reviewed testimony, and studied legal and historical briefs. I read numerous constitutional arguments and perspectives, the report of the Office of Independent Counsel, and documentation submitted by the President's attorneys, and I attended briefings by constitutional and legal experts. Most of all, I listened to you, read your letters and e-mails, and your messages left with my staff and on our answering machines. For only the second time in our nation's history of the House of Representatives voted on Articles of Impeachment. While impeachment is an integral part of our constitutional structure, the Founding Fathers made it clear it is a final recourse in dealing with a tyrant or a scoundrel whose actions clearly threaten our system of government. When an impeachment vote occurs, Congress usurps the power of the electorate. The removal of the President is reserved for the American people through elections, and Congress should only ``substitute'' or ``invalidate'' your vote and reverse the last presidential election through impeachment only when it is necessary to save the country from a President whose actions are of ``such a grave nature that they imperiled the structure of our government.'' Becasue the U.S. House of Representatives failed to define the constitutional standard for impeachment, it then became possible for each members to devise his or her own impeachment standard that fits a personal perception of facts surrounding the President. Unfortunately, what individual members have perceived as impeachable facts run contrary to the facts perceived by two-thirds of the American people who have repeatedly stated they did not want this President impeached. The American people understand that a President's criminal or civil behavior should be addressed through normal judicial proceedings, that ordinary political wrongs can be addressed at the ballot box; and that impeachment should only be used for serious public misconduct which threatens our form of government. I believe the reason for the partisan split on each article of impeachment came about because the impeachment standard was never defined and the Republican leadership stated it was up to each member ``to vote their conscience.'' Many individual members, both Democrat and Republican, have confided to me that a true vote of conscience was to censure the President. Still, the Republican leadership refused to allow us to vote on censure. Prior to drafting Articles of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon, both Republicans and Democrats set forth an impeachment standard. The standard used in the Nixon impeachment was a constitutional standard, not a personal standard. To date, more than 430 legal scholars have written to the House Leadership and the Judiciary Committee stating that the President's actions must be ``gross[ly] derelict exercise of official power,'' a standard that is not met on the facts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. ``If the President committed perjury regarding his sexual conduct, this perjury involved no exercise of presidential power as such.'' The scholarly letter went on to state that ``making false statements about sexual improprieties is not a sufficient basis to justify the trial and removal from office of the President of the United States.'' I agree that the President's behavior was inappropriate and immoral and that he must be held accountable, but, as Bob Dole wrote in the New York Times, a bipartisan resolution of censure would be a proper Congressional response to the president's actions and it would allow Congress to rapidly resolve this issue and move forward to deal with the nation's other important business. Documentation submitted by the President's legal counsel echoes what the President has said publicly, ``there are no fancy ways to say that I [the President] have sinned.'' The document continues: ``The president has insisted that no legalities be allowed to obscure the simple truth that his behavior in this matter was wrong; that he misled his wife, his friends, and our nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He did not want anyone to know about his personal wrongdoing. But he does want everyone--the Committee, the Congress and the country--to know that he is profoundly sorry for the wrongs he has committed and for the pain he has caused his family, friends, and our nation.'' As a member of the US House of Representatives, I am duty bound to differentiate between that which is sinful, immoral conduct and that which is impeachable under our Constitution. Based on all the information available to me, listening to your views, thoughts and opinions, I have determined that the President's actions did not reach the necessary constitutional standard for impeachment unique to the office of the President, and that his actions were not of such a grave nature that his personal actions imperiled our form of government. In closing let me share with you a comment that a constituent, a Dominican nun, shared with me about this whole impeachment. Sister Margaret reminded me of the Biblical story of how the men who would stone a prostitute were the very men that paid her for her services, and how they were challenged by Jesus, who said, ``Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'' Of course, none of them could throw the stone. As Sister Margaret stated to me, ``I have a stone in my hand, but I am waiting to become perfect . . . then I'll throw it!'' This does not excuse or exonerate the President for his actions. He remains liable for civil and criminal charges for his actions, and, should he be found guilty, he would justly face legal punishment. None of his actions, however, permit us to take the historically unwarranted step of invoking sections of our Constitution that will forever distort the intentions of the Founding Fathers, undo the last election, and forever change the relationship between Congress and the presidency. My votes were not cast to protect the President in any way. They were cast to protect the office of the presidency and the Constitution. Thank you for sharing your time, views, opinions, thoughts and prayers!

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 566 is a resolution that is meant to send the message that we, the House of Representatives, are serious about protecting our Great Lakes and will not sit idly by and allow our Great Lakes water to be sold to foreign countries. This resolution was originally introduced last spring after the Province of Ontario in Canada approved a permit that allows the Nova Group, an Ontario-based company, to divert three billion liters of water from Lake Superior over the next five years and sell it to Asia. After considerable public outcry against this proposal, the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario announced that the permit issued to the Nova Group would be canceled. Recently, however, the Nova Group asked the Ontario environmental appeal board to overturn the decision withdrawing the permit and to allow it to proceed with its bid to export fresh water to several Asian countries. Hearings are scheduled on the permit for this fall. Allowing the diversion of billions of liters of water from the Great Lakes would create dangerous consequences for the Great Lakes region and the United States. This permit could open the door for additional water diversion opportunities, putting the waters of all the Great Lakes on the world market. This could lead to larger scale diversions of water in the future that could have adverse effects on the environment, economy, and welfare of the Great Lakes region. H. Res. 566 calls on the President and the Senate to prevent the sale or diversion of Great Lakes water to foreign countries until it is possible to fully negotiate this proposal and its implications. Mr. Speaker, we could literally be opening up Pandora's box with the sale of Great Lakes water to foreign countries. We cannot afford to turn our Great Lakes into a tradable commodity. We must pass this legislation and send the message to Canada that our Great Lakes are not for sale to foreign countries. I'd like to thank Chairman Gilman, Mr. Hamilton, Chairman Gallegly, and Mr. Ackerman for their help on this matter. I would especially like to thank Mr. LaTourette of Ohio and Mr. Bonior of Michigan for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this nonbinding resolution.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Republican leadership to take up H. Res. 598, a resolution demanding the Administration to stop the illegal dumping that is going on in our nation's steel markets. While, the House Leadership delays and refuses to schedule a vote on this urgent issue, American jobs are being lost every day. In my district, jobs are being lost because American steel producers cannot compete with the illegally priced steel. The resolution would call for an immediate review and investigation of this situation. It would call for a one year ban on steel from any country that refuses to enforce international trade law. It would establish a task force to ensure that this critical situation is closely monitored. Finally, the resolution asks for a report to Congress from the Administration for its plan for dealing with this crisis. Mr. Speaker, while the Republicans play politics, Americans are losing their jobs. Stop playing politics and pass H. Res. 598.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today. Two years ago, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act--that changed all the rules for investors, like people who invest in today's stock market. Now, proponents want to extend an untested federal system that will supersede state law. If we pass this bill, Congress--will place all investors into a largely untested new federal system, that will make it very difficult for investors to prove fraud. Many of the proponents of this bill claim that it corrects an oversight from the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of last Congress. This claim is disingenuous and false. These same members claimed during the 1995 debate over the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that investors would continue to have protection through the state courts. The prime sponsor of the legislation explicitly stated that state courts would continue to be an avenue for defrauded investors. Now, these members are seeking to pre-empt these laws. If this legislation passes, it will over-rule, do away, with the aiding and abetting liability in 49 states. It will do away with 33 state statute of limitation provisions--we are now telling the states they have to protect their citizens with an untried, untested federal system--the federal government will now tell you what protections, states can afford their citizens. It is important to remember that the state ``blue sky laws'' predate the existent of federal securities law. When Congress wrote the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they did not impose liability and aiders and abettors or insert an adequate statute of limitations. Congress declined to take these steps because Congress felt it was necessary to allow the states to decide these state issues. Today, if you vote for this bill you will take away from investors protections they have enjoyed under state law. Chairman Levitt of the Securities Exchange Commission, consumer groups, municipal officers all supported maintaining these provisions, but they were denied by the supporters of this bill. Record numbers of small investors are entrusting their life savings to the stock market. There are a number of proposals to allow the Social Security Trust Fund to be invested in the stock market. Now more than ever, these small investors need to be protected from fraudulent securities transactions. 28 million Americans over the age of 65 depend on investment income to meet part of their expenses. In fact, a number of articles that recently appeared in newspapers across the country have highlighted continuing concerns with the ``gimmicks,'' ``hocus pocus'' and ``illusions'' that companies use in their accounting practices. I am inserting into the Record three articles describing this problem at the end of my statement. Proponents of this bill claim its passage will benefit investors. I am amazed/bemused by this statement because consumer groups, institutional investors, state pension boards and retirement plan administrators, county officials and many other groups oppose this bill. This federal pre-emption is not necessary. Proponents will also argue that this bill is necessary because there has been an increase in the number of suits in state courts since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Yet in 1997 there was a decrease in private securities as compared to levels before the passage of the PSLRA. Nationwide, private security litigation state filings account for less than (100th of 1) percent of state civil filings nationwide. I believe that it is irresponsible and unnecessary to supersede the law of 50 states. The joint system of state and federal causes of action have existed for over 60 years, I do not believe we need to pre-empt 50 state laws with an untried, untested federal system. Mr. Speaker, the process surrounding this so called ``conference'' has been nothing short of appalling. We held no conference meetings, neither my staff nor Mr. Dingell's staff were consulted on the substance of the Conference Report. Even at this point, I have not been asked whether I would like to sign the Conference Report. It is unfortunate that relations have sunk so low in this Congress, that the majority would not extend the courtesy and professional respect that we always extended them. I want to make one final, important point this bill does not change the see-enter standard in the Securities Act as the Statement of Managers points out. In fact, Senate bill managers have made clear their view that the see-enter is the appropriate standard. I am inserting into the Record an exchange of letters between a number of the Banking Committee Senators, Chairman Levitt and the White House clarifying this point. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill will make it easier for charlatans and ``rip off'' artists to defraud investors, especially senior citizens. I hope I am wrong. But before we pass this bill, I ask all members to contemplate whether or not they want to make it easier for their constituents to become victims of fraud. I urge you to vote against this bill and protect investors. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 1998] Levitt Targets Profit Distortions New York, Sept. 28.--Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. complained today of widespread company manipulation of financial reports and outlined a series of steps to halt ``earnings management.'' ``Increasingly, I have become concerned that the motivation to meet Wall Street earnings expectations may be overriding common sense business practices,'' Levitt said in a speech prepared for delivery here this evening. Corporate executives, auditors, and Wall Street analysts are increasingly part of ``a game of nods and winks'' in which financial reports are ``distorted'' to meet analysts' projections, Levitt said. In his broadest criticism of accounting problems, the top U.S. securities regulator said these misleading results jeopardize ``the credibility of our markets.'' Levitt said the SEC soon will issue new rules and provide better guidance on existing rules to offer clear ``do's and don'ts'' on revenue recognition, restructuring reserves, materiality and disclosure. In addition, the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers will form a panel to issue a report on improving the performance of the audit committees of corporate boards and formulating ``best practices'' in the accounting and auditing area. The panel, headed by John C. Whitehead, former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs & Co., and corporate governance expert Ira Millstein, will make its recommendations within 90 days. For accounting practices that aren't acceptable, Levitt promised the SEC's enforcement staff will ``aggressively act on abuses'' at public companies that appear to be managing earnings through major write-offs, restructuring reserves or other questionable practices. Levitt described an array of accounting ``gimmicks,'' ``hocus-pocus'' and ``illusions'' companies use to manipulate earning reports. Specifically, he cited misuse of so-called ``big baths,'' which are large, one-time restructuring write- offs companies use to disguise operating expenses. Levitt conceded the problem isn't new, but he said accounting gimmickry is on the rise, fueled by the bull market.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is often clear in retrospect that an individual's lifetime of varied jobs and experiences were but preparation for a task that would allow him utilize all the skills and wisdom he had accumulated. There is such a man in my Congressional District, and as Bud Mansfield retires from his post as Executive Director of the Sault Area Chamber of Commerce, I'd like to take this opportunity to reflect on his fine career. What qualities might we seek in a chamber director? We would look for someone with genuine business experience, someone who has deep roots in the area and involvement in the community, and someone who knows both the upside and downside of business ventures. We would look for someone with the salesperson's skills to sell the community to a developer and sell a developer to the community, and someone with such a work ethic that, as his last day of employment approaches, says that he doesn't plan to really retire, ever. It's quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that I have been describing Francis ``Bud'' Mansfield, who has devoted his life to work and to volunteer efforts in the Sault Ste. Marie area on the eastern end of Michigan's Upper peninsula. Bud earned his stripes in the world of business early, delivering messages for Western Union on his bicycle at the age of 12, as area residents were reminded in a recent article in the Sault Evening News. He earned his stripes, literally, in the Michigan National Guard. He worked in the men's department of a local department store, started his own cleaning business, joined the sales force of a local General Motors vehicle dealership, and eventually acquired that dealership. Bud, however, soon became one of the economic victims of the closing of Kincheloe Air Force, one of two base closings that has devastated my district and an event that later presented Bud Mansfield, the chamber director, with special challenges. Let me take a moment to state, for the record, several of almost 50 organizations which Bud Mansfield has helped shape, guide or support in his role as chamber director. A program like Habitat for Humanity would be familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, but there are other programs, such as Artrain and Rails to Trails, that are special Michigan success stories. Sault St. Marie has a unique location. It is an important border crossing into Canada and it is the site of the Soo Locks, which link Lake Superior with Lake Huron. These geographical features ensured that Bud would have a role to play with the Joint International Committee, with the Internal coordinating Committee for Joint Relations, and with a Soo Locks operations committee. Bud also served on the board of local Catholic schools, and as he said in his recent Evening News interview, he weathered the closing of that school system in the late 1970s with great sorrow. He later served on the board of the Sault Area Public Schools. It's clear that Bud won't stop moving, working and traveling after he leaves the chamber. He and his wife Mary have eight children, all of whom, according to Evening News, have moved back to Michigan. In the interview with Bud, he also stated he has considered doing some writing. So maybe, Mr. Speaker, a life of varied jobs wasn't just shaping Bud for his chamber work. Maybe the real adventure for this 71-year-old lies just around the corner. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the best for Bud Mansfield, a dedicated community servant.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4567, as my name was placed on this legislation without my knowledge or consent.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2235, which will take another step to combat school violence. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) introduced this bill in the House, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. The bill of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and this bill amends the COPS law to create this uniquely trained community police officer designated to provide early intervention for our children. School-based partnerships would be eligible to receive Federal funding to hire School Resource Officers. This summer, the Law Enforcement Caucus held two forums on school violence. We heard from experts around the country, including Education Secretary Riley, prevention experts, educators from the Baltimore and D.C. schools, the FBI, Department of Justice, authors, and scholars. Every participant, every participant at our hearings, although they came from different backgrounds and professions, expressed the same theme: We can fight juvenile crime and school violence with aggressive early intervention, prevention, and education strategies. Creating a School Resource Officer, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) has proposed, is exactly one kind of a program which will help us achieve peace and safety in our schools. The School Resource Officer is designed to work in cooperation with the schools and community-based organizations to address crimes and disorders in the schools. Besides being a police officer, the School Resource Officer will also be trained to develop crime prevention efforts with students, educate school-age victims in crime prevention and safety, train students in conflict resolution, and assist with the development of school policies and procedures to help reduce crime. This comprehensive, community- oriented approach to law enforcement is the most effective form of preventing crime, and will go a long way to make our schools safe again. Schools are places of learning for our children, but schools can only be effective if they are a safe place. Creating a School Resource Officer, as proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) is a good step to help us provide a safe environment at school, so that our kids may learn and thrive in the best possible setting. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of Senate bill 2235, and its passage.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, there is a unique restaurant story in my 1st Congressional District of Michigan. At the heart of the story is the great American fast food, the hamburger. What makes this story unique, however, are the side orders and the condiments: family and faith, enterprise and a determination to overcome economic adversity, the rewards of hard work, and a 30-year history of partnership and cooperaton that have made friendships firm and fast. Now that's a meal we'd like to serve up billions of times all over the world. On Saturday, Sept. 12, K&L Enterprises Inc. celebrates this special combo with a gala gathering in Marquette. The guests will have an opportunity to study the menu for success that has spawned eight Hardee's Restaurants and 14 Subway Restaurants in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern Wisconsin. These businesses generate a total annual payroll of $3.5 million and provide work for 500 employees, 50 of them full time. The K of K&L is Harry Krebs, who 30 years ago sold his car and, as he says, whatever else he could sell that made sense, to get the funds to buy his first Burger Chef in Escanaba. The L of K&L is Bill LaVallie, who drove up from Milwaukee, Wis., to see how his sister and her husband Harry were doing with their business. ``It was crazy from the start,'' Bill recalls. ``They were working 15 hours a day, seven days a week, not worrying about inventory, just pumping out those burgers.'' When Harry told Bill there was an opportunity to open a Burger Chef in Marquette, Bill didn't hesitate. Despite a snowstorm that seemed to continue from December 1968 through the 1st of March, 1969, the Marquette restaurant continued in business, and the partnership of Krebs and LaVallie was born. Bill's brother Terry was in charge of the opening of the Ironwood Burger Chef in 1975, working his way toward ownership and a role as part of the corporate triumvirate. The company weathered the sometimes painful but ultimately positive conversion of Burger Chef Systems to Hardee's Food Systems. With the inclusion of the Subway franchise, the company's growth in 1989 was a remarkable five new restaurants. Mr. Speaker, the story of K&L is mirrored across the nation in the growth of food franchises. What is remarkable is the way these partners and extended family members have expressed their esteem for one another and their appreciation for their success. Listen to the partners on the occasion of their 25th anniversary. ``Uncle Harry'' Krebs says, ``The Lord gave Sandy and I this business--we thank Him for that and for the trust and confidence in K&L.'' ``Burger Bill'' LaVallie says, ``I have partners whose honesty, integrity and dedication has never been questioned.'' People are also the key ingredient for Terry LaVallie. ``K&L has been blessed with terrific employees over the years, and that in large part is the reason for our success,'' he says. From the kitchens of Sandy and Harry Krebs, Bill and Carol LaVallie, and Terry and Jeanine LaVallie, those are recipes for success that everyone can appreciate.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on April 12 and 13 of this year, American flags in the state of Michigan were lowered on all public facilities for a fitting tribute to a dedicated public servant from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Gilbert Wales, better known as Gibby by an adoring community, and one of Michigan's most beloved lifetime residents died on April 10 at the age of 76. He was a loving husband, dedicated father, fellow state representative and longtime friend of mine. So I stand before you today, Mr. Speaker, to commemorate the life of Gibby Wales. In honoring the memory of Gibby I feel there are a few things that I must call attention to, a few memories that, as I am sure, everyone who knew Gibby will agree with me on, must be mentioned. One of these was Gibby's fascination with sports. Gibby was truly a sports fanatic. He seemed to enjoy it most, though, when he could share his excitement and enthusiasm with others. He was very successful in spreading his love of sports in many different ways, whether it be by working for an organization in which he was able to advance athletics through scholarships and grants, personally mentoring a child in the fine art of free throws or simply swapping the play of the day stories with friends and neighbors. I am inclined to believe that if Gibby gets his way in heaven, those Pearly Gates will open up into a basketball arena. But Gibby was most renowned for his active role in local and state politics in Michigan. After he graduated from Stambaugh High School, he fought in World War II as a member of the Field Artillery. He then dabbled in local politics. But it wasn't until he began working as a miner at M.A. Hanna Company in Stambaugh that his political career took off. Like many miners during that time, he was disappointed in the way his state representative was handling mining safety issues. Being a natural leader, Gibby decided to do something about it. He ran for a seat in the Michigan House of Representatives and was elected and reelected for five consecutive terms. Gibby committed himself to insure that democracy would work for everybody. His ten years work in the state house and his political philosophy are still greatly admired and appreciated throughout the state of Michigan. In 1990 I had the pleasure to personally consult with and work with Gibby on my own campaign. He was an active supporter of mine and he quickly became a good friend and mentor to me. On numerous occasions, I would seek advice from him on both a personal and professional basis. It has been an honor and a privilege for me to have known such a wonderful individual and to be able to share with all of my colleagues my deep admiration for one of Michigan's finest public servants. Although it is with a heavy heart that I give my condolences to his wife Verna, his children Wayne, Nancy, Peggy, and Sally, and his three sisters, it is with pride that I salute this outstanding citizen of our nation. Gilbert Wales will be missed.

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, the Conyers amendment. Whether we agree or not with the underlying provision of the bill, the Murtha amendment, I do believe and I do not see any reason why we should exclude any branch of the Justice Department or any employee. What the Murtha-McDade language establishes is an ethical standard for Federal prosecutors. If we take a look at the independent prosecutor right now, we have given the individual unfettered subpoena power and about $40 million. What does the Murtha-McDade language say? It says prosecutors and employees of the Justice Department shall not seek indictment of any person without probable cause. It says that they shall not fail to promptly release information that would exonerate a person under indictment, intentionally mislead a court regarding the guilt of a person, intentionally or knowingly misstate or alter evidence, I know that has never happened in the current investigation, attempt to influence a witness' testimony, frustrate or impede the defendant's right to discover evidence, offer or provide sexual activities to any government witness, leak or improperly disseminate information during an investigation, or engage in conduct that discredits the Justice Department. If that does not sound like what has been happening with this special investigation, this special prosecutor, and what has happened on the McDade case and some of these other cases, that is why we need this provision. This is not a political debate. This is what happens in prosecutions. That is why the McDade and Murtha language has come before us. So what the Conyers amendment says is that the independent counsels exercise their authority on behalf of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and that we must ensure that all prosecutors are held to the same standard no matter who they are investigating, whether it is the President or the person on the street. We cannot create a special class of Federal prosecutors. That is what we do if we defeat this amendment. This perfecting amendment needs to be passed. We cannot create a special class of Federal prosecutors that is not subject to Justice Department ethical standards. I urge all Members to support the Conyers amendment and rein in the prosecutors across the United States and especially the independent, so-called special prosecutors.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support funding for sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes. For those who are unfamiliar with the sea lamprey, it is an eel-like creature--introduced into the Great Lakes by foreign ballast water-- which attaches itself to fish and literally sucks the life out of the fish. Without proper treatment, this foreign species would severely threaten the $4 billion per year Great Lakes fishing industry. While the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has made great strides in fighting the sea lamprey, infestation in the St. Marys River is threatening the lake trout in northern Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. More sea lamprey are produced in this river than all of the Great Lakes combined. In fact, lamprey levels are rapidly approaching record levels in this area, resulting in the death of 54% of all adult lake trout. The Senate has specifically designated nearly $9.4 million for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for fiscal year 1999. Included in this amount is $8.7 million for the Sea Lamprey operations and research program and $1 million to combat the sea lamprey infestation in the St. Marys River in Michigan. We must stop this problem before we reverse the gains that have been made over the recent years in fighting the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. It is my hope that the Committee will concur with the Senate on these designations during the conference committee.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to express my sympathy and that of Michigan's 1st congressional district to the families of our two fallen officers of the Capitol Police Department, Detective John Michael Gibson and Officer Joseph Jacob Chestnut. They are our officers because those of us who were and those of us who are in law enforcement know that Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut are our fellow officers. When a law enforcement officer was injured or killed, each of us who have been there are injured in a personal way. As an Escanaba City police officer and later as a Michigan State Police trooper, unfortunately, too often, I felt and I have witnessed the outrage, the mourning, the sadness like that that has been expressed here in the Nation's Capitol and all across this great country. It happens all too often, Mr. Speaker. Every other day a law enforcement officer dies in the line of duty here in America, every other day. Today we salute Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. In response to their death, there has been calls for a visitor's center or to move the security perimeter farther away from the Capitol, farther to protect our brave law enforcement officers. Mr. Speaker, I really wish it was that easy. I wish we could just pass a law that here in America we could say no more law enforcement officers would have to be killed or to be injured in the line of duty. But it just does not work that way Mr. Speaker. If we ask Officer Chestnut or Detective Gibson, I am sure they would tell you that, in law enforcement officers, we rely on that personal contact with the public that we serve. We need that permanent contact to do our job. We need that contact. You see, while Officer Chestnut probably really never had a chance, Detective Gibson knew what he had to do. He had to protect employees. He had to protect the visitors. He had to protect the Nation's Capitol. He knew what the job demanded. They both understood their job. They had that sixth sense, that, even in the time of danger, they understood and they knew what had to be done. Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1993, I realized that law enforcement officers, not just here in the nation's Capitol but all across America, officers who knew how to do their job, officers who sacrificed their lives or maimed or injured each day to protect all of us, I realized when I got here they really had no voice in this House. They had no caucus in the Nation's Capitol. What did the law enforcement officers ask? They ask for understanding of what they do. They ask for understanding of what their job entailed. So I and other Members in this Congress back in 1993 formed a Law Enforcement Caucus. The bipartisan caucus promotes law enforcement ideas, promotes the needs of law enforcement officers and hopefully, hopefully we promote an understanding of their job, an understanding of the duty of what it is to be a law enforcement officer. Those of us in law enforcement understand the dangers we face. We understand how a peaceful day is shattered by gunfire and tragedy each day in America. We know that, and we understand that. So I hope that you understand that a visitor's center or maybe a larger perimeter cannot really protect law enforcement officers from doing their job or the dangers that is in their job. But we ask that, as they do their job, can we not give them our understanding that when our peace is shattered by death or injury they need to know that their children will be taken care of so they can go to college, get an education, fulfill their dreams. We hope you understand that we need a Police Officer Bill of Rights, so you understand that law enforcement, all law enforcement officers, their needs and concerns can be addressed. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson understood, and they did their job. I am not quite sure America understands their job. I am not quite sure this Congress understands. I am not quite sure America understands, but I know that Members of this Congress, the citizens of this great Nation and America, appreciates them. I am not so sure that we understand their job. As I paid my respects in the Rotunda and witnessed the Honor Guard at the caskets give the slow hand salute, it reminded me of other officers like Sergeant Dennis Finch of Traverse City, Michigan, who was murdered ten weeks ago. It reminded me of some of the officers I served with. Michigan Police State Trooper Darryl Rantanen of the Gladstone Post was killed by a teenager who had stolen a car and he rammed the police car and it went off the road and slammed into a tree. Darryl Rantanen recruited me into the Michigan State Police. It reminded me of Trooper Craig Scott of the Lansing Post. He was a good friend of mine. He was also a law client of mine. He stopped by my office, signed some papers went out on the expressway and was gunned down. I was a pall bearer. He was a friend. He is buried in Muskegon, Michigan. There was Trooper Paul Hutchins of the Detroit Post, where I counseled him when I was an instructor at the State Police Training Academy. Mr. Speaker, there are officers throughout this great Nation, and as the Capitol Police officers gave their slow hand salute, we salute all law enforcement officers, past and present. We salute their families. We say thank you. We pray for you. We thank you.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am going to oppose this bill today and I am going to oppose the rule here today, because we are going to have 2 hours, basically, to debate this bill. I think it shows the insensitivity of this rule, insensitivity to basic rights that every American demands, and insensitivity to a basic understanding to health care in this Nation. We as parents, we all know the world stops when a child falls ill. As sons and daughters, we want the best for our parents when they need health care. As husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, when a family member is stricken, we insist that nothing comes between that patient and their health care. We want the best possible treatment. Unfortunately, the Hastert bill does not provide it. That is what health insurance is supposed to be about. We pay for it, we have it, and we want it when we need it. The doctors, the nurses, the hospitals, the emergency room, the medicine, we want whatever it takes to get our child, our parents back healthy again. That is how it used to be. But in the last years, millions of Americans have moved into managed care plans, and something got in the way. Priorities were shifted from patients to profits. Emergency room crises were compromised by boardroom considerations. Professionals in white lab coats start taking orders, not from doctors, but insurance bureaucrats. The delivery of top-notch health care became less important; and the bottom line, profit. When we take a look at the bill today, we will see that the Democratic bill, the Ganske-Dingell bill is the only one that will get the job done for us when we pay for health care and we demand quality care. The Democratic bill is designed to provide medical coverage. Medical professions will be back in control of medical decisions. Emergency care in an emergency, no questions asked, underneath the Democratic plan. Expedited appeals process to approve the care we deserve before it is too late. Access to a specialist when you need it. I hope we will defeat this rule and put some time into the Democratic plan.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, tomorrow we are scheduled to begin the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I ask the American people to look at both plans, the Democratic plan and the Republican plan. As you do, you will see point by point the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights bill is far superior in reform that will guarantee that doctors and patients and not insurance executives will decide your medical future. The right to have protection for women after mastectomies and reconstructive surgery is in the Democratic bill, not in the Republican bill. Democrats provide for a choice of doctor within a plan, access to specialty care, and direct access to OB-GYN for women. These are all parts lacking in the Republican plan. To enforce your choice, and it is your choice and your access to your doctor, the Democrats allow enforcement in State courts if you are injured by your HMO plan. Why do you need that protection? Because in this country, two groups have immunity. They are HMOs and foreign diplomats. You pay for health insurance. You have the right to demand quality health insurance. Support the Democratic HMO Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has introduced the Insurance Industry Protection Act instead of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Make no mistake about it, there are major differences between the Patients' Bill of Rights and the Republican fig leaf proposal. The Republican plan still leaves medical decisions in the hands of insurance company clerks. It allows for drive-through mastectomies; does not give access to specialty care when needed; does not allow women to choose their obstetrician or gynecologist as a primary care doctor; does not provide for the continuity of the doctor-patient relationship; provides no effective mechanism to hold accountable an HMO plan when it abuses or kills or injures someone. There are only two organizations in this whole country that have immunity, HMOs and foreign diplomats. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan wants to make sure that good health care is the right of every American. If you pay for it, you deserve it. You have the right to demand the treatment you need from your managed care plan.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may cosume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us tonight. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that changed all the rules for the investors like people who invest in today's stock market. Now proponents of this legislation want to extend an untested federal system upon all the states. If we pass this bill, Congress will place all investors into a largely untested, untried new federal system that will make it very difficult for investors to prove fraud. Many of the proponents of this bill claim that it corrects an oversight from the Private Securities Litigation Act of the last Congress. This claim is disingenuous and false. These same Members claim that during the debate over the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that investors would continue and would always have available to them the protection afforded by the state courts. The prime sponsor of the previous legislation explicitly stated that state courts would continue to be an avenue for defrauded investors to recoup their losses. Now these Members are seeking to preempt these state laws. If this legislation passes, it will overrule, do away, with the aiding and abetting statutes in 49 states. It will do away with 33 statute of limitations provisions that we are now telling states that forget about their own statute of limitations to protect their investors, they will now have to protect their citizens with an untried, untested federal system. The Federal Government will now tell them what protections states can afford their citizens. It is important to remember throughout this debate tonight that the blue sky laws predated the existence of federal securities law. When Congress wrote the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they did not impose liability on aiders and abettors or insert an adequate statute of limitation. They declined to take these steps because Congress felt that it was necessary to allow states to decide these issues at the state level. But yet, tonight, if we vote for this bill, we will take away from these investors protections they have enjoyed for over 60 years under state law. Chairman Arthur Levitt of the Securities Exchange Commission, consumer groups, municipal officers all supported maintaining these two simple provisions, extending the statute of limitations and maintaining the states' aiding and abetting statutes, but they were denied that request by the supporters of this bill. As we look at the market today, we see record numbers of small investors are entrusting their life savings to the stock market. There are a number of proposals to allow the Social Security Trust Fund to be invested in the stock market. Now more than ever, these small investors need to be protected from fraudulent securities transactions. 28 million Americans over the age of 65 depend on investment income to meet part of their expenses. The proponents of this bill claim its passage will actually benefit these investors. I am flabbergasted by this statement because consumer groups, institutional investors, state pension boards, retirement plan administrators, county officials and many other groups oppose this legislation. This federal preemption is not necessary. Proponents argue that this bill is necessary because there has been an increase in the number of suits in state courts since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 2 years ago. Yet in 1997 there was a decrease in private securities as compared to levels before the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995. Nationwide, private security litigation state filings account for less than 100th of 1 percent of state filings nationwide. I believe that it is irresponsible and unnecessary to supersede the law of all 50 states. The joint system of state and federal causes of action have existed for over 60 years. At a time when a market has joined its bullish run, I do not believe that we need now to preempt the 50 state laws with an untried, untested federal system. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill will make it easier for charlatans and rip-off artists to defraud investors, especially senior citizens. I truly hope that I am wrong. But before we pass this bill, I ask all Members to contemplate whether or not they want to make it easier for their constituents to become victims of fraud. I urge them to vote against this bill and protect our investors. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the Consumer Federation of America and the Government Finance Officers Association in opposition to this bill. Consumer Federation of America, July 20, 1998. Hon. Bart Stupak, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Oppose H.R. 1689, Securities Litigation Reform Bill Dear Representative Stupak: It is our understanding that the full House of Representatives will vote as early as today or tomorrow on H.R. 1689, the ``Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.'' I am writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) to express our strong opposition to this legislation and to urge you to oppose it. CFA shares the view expressed by state and federal securities regulators that the current federal law, as articulated in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), tilts the balance too far in favor of securities fraud defendants and threatens the ability of defrauded investors to recover their losses. For this reason, we strongly oppose extending that standard to lawsuits currently being brought in state court. Even those who are more optimistic about the effects of the federal law, however, must acknowledge that this preemption legislation would deprive investors of important protections, such as aiding and abetting liability and longer statutes of limitation, that are available only under state law. Because it is fundamentally unjustified, would further undermine defrauded investors' access to justice, and could leave defrauded investors with no effective means of recovering their losses, CFA strongly opposes H.R. 1689 and urges you to vote against it. Sincerely, Barbara L.N. Roper, Director of Investor Protection, Consumer Federation of America.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the proponents of the bill would like to insert a statement to put in as an addition to the debate. Instead of taking up 2 minutes, can we just do it by unanimous consent? That way we do not have to worry about division of time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.