Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to consider how to balance the budget this week, we must remember people. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of our senior citizens. We do not need $245 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of this country and for large corporations. We must keep in mind what our decisions do to ordinary people. One of my citizens recently wrote to me, and if I can quote from that letter: We used all of our life savings on Medicare and doctor bills for our golden years and now we are on Medicaid. If it were not for the help from Medicaid, we would both die. Please help us and do not let the Republicans take this away from us, because I am so afraid of this happening. With all of our medical problems, we still carry our high insurance, even though I have to borrow the money from family, and they really do not have it to give. And our insurance stops at 65. Then where will we be? Please help us. Let us help the ordinary citizens of this country. Let us repeal the tax breaks for the wealthiest and the large corporations of this country. Let us put people first and not corporate welfare first.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Bernard Bouschor, who has been named the Michigan Upper Peninsula's Person of the Year by the Upper Peninsula Commission for Area Progress. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives and the citizens of Michigan, I commend Mr. Bouschor on this achievement. Mr. Bouschor is chairman and executive director of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a position he has held since 1987. The role of the Upper Peninsula Commission for Area Progress is to promote economic and human development, and Bernard Bouschor has been instrumental in this role. In the last 4 years alone, Sault Chippewa tribal business revenue has grown from $32 million to $228 million a year. Additionally, the number of employees has grown from 400 to more than 2,700, making the Sault Chippewa the Upper Peninsula's largest employer. This is from a tribe that was not even federally recognized until 1975. Much of this success can be attributed to Bernard Bouschor's tenacity, perseverance, and hard work. Mr. Bouschor grew up in Sault Ste. Marie as one of nine children in a home without running water. Despite missing 2 years of school after contracting polio as a teenager, Mr. Bouschor was the only one of his siblings to attend college. It was from this experience that he learned the importance of self reliance, a lesson he now carries to his leadership of the tribe. While many native American tribes that have casino gambling make cash payments to tribal members, Mr. Bouschor refuses to do this. Instead, profits are invested in a variety of business ventures that will support the tribe if there is ever a decline in casino gambling revenue. These investments include two auto parts plants, a neon factory, and various real estate purchases. To achieve this diversity of business ventures, Bouschor created an independent commission composed of tribal members and outside business people to locate potential investments. In this way, the tribe was able to draw on business expertise from outside the local area. Mr. Speaker, with Bernard Bouschor's leadership, the sky's the limit for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Again, I congratulate Mr. Bouschor on being named the Michigan Upper Peninsula's Person of the Year.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The last speaker on the Republican side from Arizona, the Fifth District, they are putting 61 police officers at risk, 85 pending cops applications at risk. And they are saying State and local governments do not know what they are talking. But yet they are applying for this program.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says that this is not going to happen, but the Department of Justice who must administer this program tells us that is what is going to happen, I believe the Department of Justice, that the program will be terminated because of their $10,000 rule. In Kentucky there are 132 applications pending, 132 more municipalities and country sheriffs who did not know what they were doing underneath their logic are applying for the COPS Program. My colleague will say that we need flexibility, as the gentleman said and as the Washington Post pointed out. I do not want the Washington Post to fight crime for us. I want local agencies, and that is why we have the COPS More Program, more program which provides us equipment, which provides us technology, that provides us with the technology we need.

Mr. STUPAK. No, I will not. I want to continue my argument. Department of Justice, who administers the program, said----

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if I have time remaining, I will yield, but I am going to finish my argument.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. STUPAK. No, I would like to finish my--and if I have time left-- --

Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time----

Mr. STUPAK. Prisons and everything else.

Mr. STUPAK. I realize that, but tell me. Nowhere in that $18 million is one police officer guaranteed for Kentucky.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding this time to me on this issue. As my colleagues know, back in the 103d Congress we put forth the COPS Program, and now we are here in the 104th Congress, and suddenly we want to block-grant this program. We have heard all the horrors of the block grants that have occurred in the past, the airplanes, the tanks, the yachts that have been purchased, and under our colleagues' block grant proposal not one police officer is guaranteed. There is a possibility, but there are no guarantees. No communities can look with confidence that they will receive a police officer. Mr. Speaker, they tell us they are going to do this because they want to leave it to the local units of government. Well, let me, if I may, look at Kentucky District No. 5 where the distinguished chairman is from. Every one of those communities that applied applied because they wanted a police officer, not because Washington made them. It was the local county commissioners of Perry County, or Pike County, or Clay County, or Wolf County, or Jenkins City Police Department, or how about West Liberty City Police Department. They applied. Washington did not force them. They know how to fight crime at the local level, and they received under the COPS Program 25 police officers.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman tells us that these Washington force--it was the gentleman's local communities that wanted these police officers, and now what is going to happen? Now, according to page 21, if the gentleman's agencies fall below $10,000, they lose their block grant, they lose. They lose their COPS Program, and I know my friends on that side of the aisle say that is not true, but the Department of Justice says under page 21 when they fall below the $10,000 rule, they will lose their officers.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, to answer the gentleman from Kentucky, the Fifth District, it was his 25 police agencies that applied for the COPS program and have been awarded that program. It was not Washington telling him to make it. And if he wrote this bill, then he knows nowhere in your bill do you even guarantee one police officer being hired. We have 100,000 guaranteed. Nowhere in your bill does it say your 90/10 provision goes for more than 1 year. We did it for 3 years. You want technology, bullet-proof vests? COPS more program, equipment technology, civilian employees, all come underneath there. Everything you want is in the COPS program. Just give it some time. Stop playing politics with it.

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

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. To the last speaker, he is jeopardizing 80 police officers in his district, 202 applications pending in Florida, and your bill does not guarantee 1 police officer. All you guarantee is a manner in which reduces crime and improves public safety. Not one police officer is mentioned in your bill.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was commenting about his district and how crime went down. The Memphis Police Department received 40 police officers underneath this COPS program. Your district received 82 police officers underneath this COPS program, and you are putting them all at risk if you vote for this bill. You cannot stand here and tell me that crime did not go down in your district with an additional 82 police officers. Are you saying those 82 police officers did not do anything to help reduce crime in your district? And also Tennessee has pending another 114 police officers at the Justice Department waiting for approval.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will oppose this rule in the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriation bill here today. I am here to talk about the COPS Program. Being a former police officer myself, I am very concerned about the COPS Program. It is a program that works. It has been a very successful program. To date, we have hired 26,000 police officers. In every jurisdiction in this country 26,000 police officers have been hired, and here are the cities and how much money was received. We have pending another 18,500 police officers; those applications are currently pending with the Department of Justice. We are halfway to our goal of 100,000 police officers on the street. There is no reason to turn back now. It is an easy one-page application. Police officers around this country like the program. Money is going directly to them. In fact, over half the communities in the United States have applied for the COPS Program. We have more applications than what we can fund. What happens in this bill? Look at page 21. Page 21 of this conference report says that if you are a small community like many of the communities I represent, and if your Federal match falls below $10,000, the money is then taken away from the COPS Program and put with the Governors of the State to use in a manner that reduces crime and improves public safety. When we had this debate on February 14, we asked not to put in an amendment to allow us to build roads, but that was rejected, so you believe, at least the new majority believes, that if you build a new road, you fight crime and you improve public safety. You might have a nice highway, but you certainly do not help any police officers on the street and fight crime in your communities. So on behalf of the 26,000 police officers throughout this country who have been working at this program, whose jobs now are at risk based upon the proposal put forth by these conferees, we ask that you reject this rule and reject this bill.

Mr. STUPAK. That is correct. Reclaiming my time, you said crime was going down now and it is these 82 additional police officers your district received underneath this program, the COPS program. Not only that, you can go to--Oakland Police Department received one police officer, Galloway City received one police officer. These little communities cannot afford anything without our assistance and you are denying them this assistance.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today, we will vote on the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation bill, which contains the COPS Program. Not only does this bill do away with the successful COPS Program, but if we look on page 21 of the bill, it repudiates the COPS contract that the Department of Justice has signed with our local communities. If my colleagues have received a police officer in their district under the COPS Program, Federal funding for the third year of this program may be taken away. Having walked a beat myself as a city police officer, I am concerned that not only does the police officer have to worry about his or her personal safety and the community's safety, but now they have to worry about their employment security and safety. The new majority wishes to break the contract with our police officers. Fifty-four police officers in my district are at risk. So let us stand up for the police officers in our communities, let us not allow this new majority to risk the employment opportunities for our police officers. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic motion to recommit to save the COPS Program and continue employment of cops in your district.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 29, 1995, I was unavoidably absent from the House on official travel and missed four recorded votes. Had I been here, I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall No. 833, the motion to table the measure House Resolution 288; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 832, the vote on final passage of H.R. 1788, to authorize appropriations for AMTRAK; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 831, the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1788; and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 830, the Collins Illinois amendment to H.R. 1788. [[Page E 2289]]

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's concern to move this legislation expeditiously. Since the Senate has not yet pushed that second CR to the President, if the Senate still has an opportunity to amend that CR before it goes to the President, if they could reach an agreement with the White House on the second CR, which may be different from what the House has passed, can we have assurances from the majority leader that he would forthwith bring up a new CR that came over from the Senate, which may be different from the one we voted on Wednesday night?

Mr. STUPAK. That is correct, Mr. Majority Leader, but it has not gone to the White House, so no veto has taken place. Therefore, they can revisit the issue before it goes to the White House; is that not correct?