Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. No, but they can amend it or make changes to the one they received from the House of Representatives before it goes to the White House, and then it would come back to this body for further consideration. I am asking if the distinguished majority leader would then bring it forth to the floor as soon as possible?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Speaker Gingrich to present to the American people a clean, honest continuing resolution. No tricks, no gimmicks for Gingriches, just an honest government bill to keep the Government functioning. Many of our financial problems are because congressional leaders have used the budget to make major legislative policy changes that only serves to compound our budget problems. In an honest budget, there is no place for Medicare premium increases, or in an honest budget, there is no place to cut student college loan programs. Mr. Speaker, give this Congress and the American people an honest, clean budget. No more games with the budget; no more tricks on the American people; no more, Speaker Gingrich. Give us a clean, honest budget.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, Medicare cuts, now an $11 premium increase on part B, all to pay for a tax break for the wealthy. My constituents are concerned. And in fact, a recent letter from one of my constituents said: Dear Representative Stupak: I have been out of circulation for a while because of illness. I do hope my letter will not be too late for your consideration. We are deeply concerned about the health care programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid and also Social Security. Granted they need attention. It seems the first move should be to take the graft out and better bookkeeping. There are also many programs that are fleecing America which could be cut to help balancing the budget! My husband and I have worked very hard all our lives and strived to make a decent retirement situation. We have been community workers giving our time and money. We thought we were in good condition until my husband and downed with Alzheimer's Disease and I have been in the hospital 9 times in recent years. My husband worked for the Post Office thirty-seven and a half years, the last 15 as Postmaster. We should have a good retirement but instead we are going broke. Please consider what you are doing to the middle class. To my GOP colleagues, as my constituent asked, it is not too late to reject the Republican Medicare cuts to pay for a tax break for the wealthy.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we are going to vote on reconciliation this week, and the last speaker in the well said that they are going to keep their contract provisions and give everybody a tax break. Well, here is a draft of the reconciliation bill. It is 1,563 pages. On page 1,563 title 19 says, contract tax provisions, text to be supplied. Text to be supplied. They do not have a bill. We will never see the bill, but they are going to expect every one of us, 435, to vote on it come Thursday, a bill we have never seen. Mr. Speaker, we know from the past 10 months what the Republican plan [[Page H 10648]] will do. It will eliminate Medicaid coverage for over 69,000 children in Michigan. We know it will jeopardize the immunization program for children in Michigan. We know that over 600,000 children in Michigan will have their taxes raised by an average of $380 by the year 2002. We know that they deny Head Start over 7,000 children in Michigan. We know that there are nutrition programs that will be cut in this reconciliation package. Before we vote, I hope we get the whole text of the reconciliation bill and not just false promises.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, just a speaker or two ago said that he had a plan that will cut down on fraud, waste, and abuse and then read a list of fines and costs and fines and costs and fines and costs that he prevails upon people. The problem is, he never gets to the fines and costs because he has raised the legal standard that must be met in order to bring any kind of a case against someone who is ripping off the system. Having been a police officer for 13 years, you try to conduct an investigation, you keep putting a hurdle up higher and higher for law enforcement here to do their job. But my colleagues' answer to fraud and abuse is, ``After you catch them we'll put more fines and costs.'' In the Democratic plans that have been presented, Mr. Chairman, we have asked our colleagues to look at things that do not raise the standard, but will make it easier to give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on fraud, waste, and abuse; things such as putting civil penalties in the antikickback statute, giving subpoena power, something very simple. We do not have it under Medicare. Give us grand jury investigations; that was denied. Give us competitive bidding for durable medical equipment so we are not paying $28 for foam rubber mattresses that we can buy downtown for $19.95 or for the oxygen that will cost $280 under Medicare that only costs $123 for the VA. Let us competitively bid to cut down on the waste, and our colleagues said no. There is no provision against bundling. For every time there is a medical piece, they add another price to it and put it all together bundled up in one big package so they can charge more. That was what we saw happening in Medicare. The way my colleagues can save this program is by cracking down on the fraud, waste, and abuse, but their answer is raise the standards for investigation, make it more difficult, make it harder on the seniors by putting all that money into fraud, waste, and abuse, and we have nothing to show for it.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out the last speaker in [[Page H 10337]] the well down here, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], his district will lose $154 million over the next 7 years if this Republican plan goes through, just to give a tax break to the rich. I am more concerned about the State of Michigan where the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] spoke in which in his district the hospitals will lose $125 million between now and 2002 just to pay for this tax break for the rich. Being from Michigan, I am very concerned about that.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the last gentleman spoke about fraud in this bill. I agree with the gentleman. It is a fraud to have this bill. Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at it, this GOP bill, what the Republicans have done, they have legalized fraud in this bill. They have raised the legal standard that is required of law enforcement to crack down on fraud, waste, and abuse. They have raised the legal standard in which HCFA and OIG can recover proceeds, money stolen from the trust fund. Mr. Chairman, the GOP bill makes it harder to detect fraud; makes it harder to prosecute fraud; makes it harder to recover. Even CBO, that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has quoted from, says the fraud provisions will only get us $2 billion over 7 years. Mr. Chairman, they do not even find any fraud in this bill until 1998. They cannot find any. I can tell my colleagues that with oxygen concentrates, we can recover $4.2 billion in 5 years just by using the same formula the Veterans Administration uses. But my colleagues on the other side do not accept those things. Mr. Chairman, there is no fraud-fighting elements in this bill. The Department of Justice is against it. The Office of Inspector General is against it. They have all come out against these so-called fraud and abuse sections. Take the charts from CBO and take the time line that has been created. Mr. Chairman, $2 billion is all they recover.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut said there are no cuts in this bill. I would direct the attention of the gentlewoman to page 275 in PPS hospitals, which shows that for 1996, which started 18 days ago, fiscal year 1996, there is a 15-percent cut for hospitals. That 15 percent will not only affect seniors, but the whole population that is served by those hospitals.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, I am on the Committee on Commerce and will be on the floor most of the day tomorrow arguing Medicare. I can go on all night about the inequities in the Republican plan, but what I would like to do tonight is submit my statement for the Record, and yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]. Mr. Speaker, I include my statement for the Record as follows: Mr. Speaker, a week ago, I introduced the Common Sense Medicare Reform. the new majority in Congress claims that it is necessary to cut $270 billion in order to save the Medicare Program. This is simply ludicrous. The Medicare trustees say that the Federal Government must devote $89 billion--not $270 billion. What's really going on here is the majority is attempting to steal $270 billion from the Medicare trust fund in order to keep its campaign promise by giving a $245 billion tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Actually, the Medicare trustees say that the Federal Government must devote $89 billion--not $270 billion--to save Medicare from bankruptcy. There must be changes and adjustments to Medicare, but it's irresponsible to gut a program which 37 million senior citizens depend on for health care coverage. My legislation takes the best ideas from the Republican proposal and the Democratic plan to improve the Medicare Program in a bipartisan manner. The first thing we must do to save Medicare is to aggressively fight waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. Ten cents of every dollar spent on Medicare is consumed by fraud and waste. Some health care providers charge the Medicare Program many times more than what these goods and services would cost on the open market. For example, Medicare rents, you can't buy it, but rent pressure reducing mattresses for approximately $650.00 per month and comparable alternate pressure reducing mattresses can be purchased for $168.95. Foam rubber egg shell mattresses can be purchased for $19.95, yet Medicare pays $29.95. The Medicare Program pays $280 for oxygen concentrate, while the Veterans Administration, another Federal agency, pays only $123 for the exact same product. Savings from the oxygen concentrate alone could save us $4.2 billion over 5 years. These three examples alone demonstrate how billions of dollars are robbed from the Medicare trust fund. We can find the money we need to save Medicare. In 1994, more than $8 billion was recovered in fraud and waste by Medicare providers, and it is expected that $10 billion will be recovered in 1995. We can save $93.5 billion over the next 7 years by actively detecting and prosecuting waste, fraud, and abuse, and this amount is more than enough to save Medicare according to the trustees' report. The Republican Medicare bill proposes to legalizes fraud committed by health care providers by making it more difficult to prove fraud and to recover Medicare funds. Conversely, my bill provides more and better tools to fight Medicare fraud by increasing the powers available to law enforcement. It will strengthen civil penalties for kickbacks, provide grand jury investigations, and increase subpoena authority. Both the OIG and the Justice Department endorse the fraud-fighting tools that are contained in my bill. Currently, any money saved from Medicare is returned to the U.S. Treasury. My legislation requires that any funds recovered through cuts or savings be automatically returned to the Medicare trust fund. Your Medicare money should not go to the U.S. Treasury to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations--it should be used to save Medicare. I firmly believe that before we gut Medicare and implement radical and untried managed care programs, we should test the feasibility of these new programs on a voluntary basis. I propose that we look at managed care programs and health care service networks on a 5-year trial basis. We must make sure that such pilot programs will save money, provide quality care, and prolong the life of Medicare while giving seniors greater health care benefits and choices. Programs such as provider sponsor organizations [PSO's] and provider sponsor networks [PSN's] may be particularly useful and effective in rural areas. In northern Michigan, we are on the cutting edge of providing maximum benefit for our health dollar through cooperative efforts. I won't gamble with your health care. Let's make sure that the proposed changes improve Medicare, rather than destroy it. My legislation also directs that a Baby Boomer Commission be appointed to study alternatives for the best way to address the large influx of recipients who will be eligible for Medicare beginning in the year 2010. The Commission will work with Medicare trustees to ensure there will be funds available to provide health care coverage for the baby boomer population. In addition, the Commission will hold public hearings all across the country so you will have input on any proposed Medicare changes. Lastly, I advocate the use of a single-page Medicare claim form to increase administrative efficiency. We can simplify the Medicare system for beneficiaries and providers, while saving money from increased efficiency and cutting down on fraud. People should not have to pay more money to receive less coverage and lose their choice of doctors. The Republican majority should not raid the Medicare trust fund to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and multinational corporations. Instead of stealing money from the Medicare System, we need to put money back into the system to keep it solvent for current and future recipients. Let's not gamble with the health of our senior citizens. You can see why the Republican majority refuses to make my bill in order because it is common sense.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 2259. As my colleagues may know, on July 19, I introduced H.R. 2073, legislation similar to H.R. 2259 and S. 1254. We need to remain tough on crime, and my legislation and the bill being considered today represent a commitment against drug abuse and drug traffickers. The scourge that crack cocaine brings to communities all across America must be stopped, and the proposal by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to change Federal sentencing guidelines pertaining to crack cocaine was, quite simply, wrong and wholly inappropriate. As a former law enforcement officer, I fully understand the overwhelming need to prevent the Sentencing Commission's proposal from being implemented. The guidelines, if allowed to become law in just 2 weeks, would mean that some offenses that are now subject to 5-to 10- year mandatory prison sentences could potentially result in sentences involving no required prison term at all. This is the completely wrong message to be sending out to traffickers and users of crack cocaine. A major part of our effort to fight crime and defeat criminals rests with punishing those dealing drugs, the pushers and traffickers who have inflicted tremendous harm on literally thousands of individuals, tremendous harm on families all across America, and tremendous harm on communities and neighborhoods in our own congressional districts. There are some who point to the apparent disparity in sentences for crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine. I actually believe that there should be an adjustment in these respective sentences, but I prefer to see an increase in the penalties for powder cocaine, instead of lowering the penalties for crack cocaine, as the Sentencing Commission has proposed. Mr. Chairman, this response to the guidelines proposed by the Sentencing Commission is responsible and fair. Most of all, this legislation represents our continued commitment to combatting drug abuse and stopping those who wish to destroy the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned earlier, you were talking about the incident that happened on the Committee on Commerce. I sit on the Committee on Commerce. I am a former police officer. I spent 12-13 years in law enforcement. In fact, one of my posts was with Michigan State police at the State capital post. We had to go periodically to demonstrations outside the capital hearing rooms, things like that. I would say in this picture here, you see a police officer putting what we call flexicuffs on this individual. That is a standard operating procedure. I want to say that Capital Police who were put in a tough, a very difficult situation, handled themselves very professionally. They were very courteous. Not only was I at the committee, but I went down to where this photograph was taken in the basement of the Rayburn Building, as they were loading the individuals in the squad cars to take them to the booking station. I went down to the police captain, police headquarters, where these people were being booked, and observed the procedure. Having been a former police officer, needless to say, I was somewhat interested. I also wanted to go because I had offered my seat on the Committee on Commerce to one of those seniors who was standing there, and when the commotion broke out, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman, sort of adjourned the committee, and my Republican friends all left, and then they turned off the lights so everybody was sort of in the dark. Then a few minutes later, now they abandoned the committee room, they turned off the lights, a few minutes later they come back in, and they are told they will have to sit down and be quite or face arrest. Most Members were standing up, so I offered my seat to the lady standing next to me, Barbara, I forget her last name. She was from Maryland. I went with her. She was quite concerned. She had never been arrested. They were fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, actually put in a holding room until later that afternoon they were allowed to bond out before a magistrate. You could not just get an appearance ticket like a traffic ticket, which is an acceptable thing, but because this is a bondable offense, they actually had to be held at the District of Columbia court and bond out later that afternoon. The police officers again did an excellent job under some tough circumstances. But I do not believe in, having been a police officer and having dealt with civil disobedience in government, I do not believe the arrest was necessary, especially after we abandoned the hearing room, the markup room, if you will, turned off the lights, come back, tell them to sit down. This lady that I assisted did sit down, and then she faced arrest when she sat [[Page H 10039]] down in my chair after I gave her permission. The part that bothers me, the earlier, a week ago, last Monday, we started this so-called markup, the National Council for Senior Citizens came in with mail bags, invited in by the Republicans, dumped 100,000 mailgrams in front of all of us. This gentleman in the group was allowed to make a speech. There were not supposed to be witnesses, but he was allowed to make a speech as they were dumping the mail. Then they grabbed a handful of mailgrams. As what has happened so often in the past, they were false, fictitious, 75 of them my staff and I went through, and again, being a police officer, I was rather curious. I started to go through them. Two were from people who were deceased. Their family members wrote back and said ``deceased,'' and gave the day they were deceased. One died in September 1994, but they counted them as supporting the Republican Medicare plan. Another five were unsigned. One was addressed to ``contributor.'' Apparently, this individual contributed to some campaign or something through this organization. So it was addressed to ``contributor.'' Three of them had written comments on the back, just destroying the Republican Medicare plan. One of them wrote on there, ``I do not want to be forced into managed care.'' Another one said, ``I want the Federal employees' health benefit like you have.'' Another one said, ``Why do you take these pay raises? Give us what you have.'' They were anything but ringing endorsements of the Republican plan. I think what is going on here is groups who speak up are subject to silence, either through not allowing the groups to have their voices heard or, when they try to be heard, maybe even face arrest. They bring forth mailgrams which people do not exist, they are unsigned, they are in complete opposition. I am very concerned about the image that is being put forth that all of these people support it. The only ones we hear from are people who are supportive of the plan, or allegedly supportive of the plan, and the other thing that bothers me is when we did tort reform, started out being medical security reform earlier in the committee, there were actually highly paid lobbyists sitting in the top row of the dais while the hearings were going on. They approved the amendments being offered by both sides. These people came in to have their voices heard are not allowed to sit in the committee room, even in my chair. How could lobbyists be allowed to sit at the top of the dais and review the amendments and give their ``yes'' or ``no''? We need fairness. We need openness, much like the Speaker said. I would invite him or anyone to have that fairness and openness in all committees. Let us no longer do any legislation without hearings. I thank you for allowing me to say a few words this evening.

Mr. STUPAK. Two points I would like to make, really, three points. First of all, you say, no plans. Democrats offered two plans in Committee on Commerce last night. Both were shot down on parliamentary rules only. I offered one plan, only 39 pages long, which cuts out fraud and abuse. We can save the system there. Also, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] offered a plan. Never a comment on it. We were just ruled out of order. I defeated one of the parliamentary inquiries on my legislation. Then they brought up another one, because I used the word ``hospital,'' hospital trust fund, which is part of Medicare, because I used ``hospital,'' part A. We have jurisdiction over part B. They ruled me out of order and silenced my plan before we could even have a vote. The other point I would like to make, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] mentioned the MSA's, medical savings accounts. You know, even Ross Perot says this is dangerous, go slowly, do not do it too quickly. We offered a proposal to do a pilot program on MSA's. Again, that was defeated. These figures you mentioned, I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], about the payment due in 1996, $3.1 billion, then again a total over 7 years as we are trying to save Medicare, $15.3 billion. Understand, folks, that comes immediately out of the Medicare trust fund. There will not be a bill to the American people. It is a bill to the seniors who have paid into the Medicare trust fund. As soon as these seniors sign up for the medical savings account, you have to transfer. Here is a trust fund they are claiming is going to go bankrupt, so let us further bankrupt it by taking out these MSA's, medical savings accounts, before anyone even knows if they work. In the private sectors they have not worked. As I said, even Ross Perot said do not do it, go slowly, you are playing on thin ice here. You can bankrupt, a spiraling bankruptcy, into the Medicare system before it ever even gets going, instead of needing $90 billion to save the system. If the MSA's come out, we will need at least $105 billion plus. They may work, but do we have to throw all of our health care system, the seniors, health care system, to an MSA plan and try to force them into these medical savings accounts without even knowing if it is going to work? Is Medicare not a valuable program that helps our seniors? Do they want us to gamble with their health care system on a system that is not even tried, a system that will immediately start draining the Medicare trust fund? That does not make sense.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to once again appoint an outside counsel, for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has not followed the process as described here in the Rules of Official Conduct. These rules state that after receiving a complaint, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct then determines whether the complaint, here against the Speaker, merits further inquiry and then it issues a preliminary inquiry. That is found in rule XV. If so, then a subcommittee is appointed to investigate, under rule XVII, whether there is reason to believe a violation has occurred. Then the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conducts a trial-like hearing. Unfortunately, the resolution for a preliminary inquiry has never been filed. But the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, according to its chairperson, has begun a process that is ``flexible'' and ``a process that its own committee Members can feel good about.'' Madam Speaker, ethics should not be flexible because the subject of the investigation is the Speaker. I want all Members and the American people to feel good about this investigation and to restore the faith and confidence in this institution. Please appoint an outside independent counsel.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to St. Mary Queen of Peace Church in Kingsford, MI, as it celebrates the golden jubilee. This is certainly an important milestone in the history of St. Mary's, as well as the Kingsford community. I was pleased that I could be in Kingsford on August 12, 1995, with Bishop Garland, Bishop Schmitt, Father Nomellini, all clergy, and the parish community to celebrate 50 years of honoring God and serving God's people. When St. Mary Queen of Peace Church was dedicated on August 12, 1945, amid the splendor of a Catholic ritual, it was the culmination of many years of efforts by the local community. Prior to that time, there were two downtown parishes in Iron Mountain, St. Mary and St. Joseph. Local parishioners found that the distances that had to be traveled to St. Mary and St. Joseph were a serious impediment to attending Sunday mass. It soon became clear, as the Kingsford area became more populated, that there was a need for a separate parish for Catholic families. In 1940, working with the permission of his bishop, Iron Mountain's Reverend Pelissier established a mission station in Kingsford Heights and placed in charge his assistant--your friend, my father's friend, and later the pastor of this parish--Rev. Arnold Thompson. As many of you know, and as I mentioned at Father Thompson's jubilee celebration, Father Thompson and my father were in seminary together. I am living proof that my father did not complete the seminary. My connection with this parish goes back even further, because my father taught Father Joe Gouin. Because of these ties, the Stupak family is always welcomed and made to feel part of the St. Mary Queen of Peace family. It was Reverend Thompson who impressed upon the people of this pioneer congregation their obligation in laying the ground work for the future parish. In 1941, five lots were purchased, and by 1942, mass was being offered every Sunday in a local community building by Rev. Arnold Thompson. Soon, catechism groups and a religious vacation school were organized. The enthusiasm for a separate parish ran high, and a fund was started for the planning and construction of a new church. Anxious to be declared a parish in its own right, the community secured a residence for a priest if the bishop would send one. Progress being made by the people of Kingsford so pleased the Bishop Francis Magner, that he deemed it time to send the resident priest and formally erect the parish. On June 14, 1944, His Excellency, the Bishop of Marquette, issued the decree that formed St. Mary Queen of Peace parish in Kingsford Heights, and Rev. Gerald Harrington was appointed as its first pastor. The work of excavation began in August 1944 on the lots purchased in 1941, and the decorative cornerstone, containing documents of parish, diocesan, and national history, was laid in October. Many distinguished clergymen from the Midwest were present to celebrate the occasion. On August 12, 1945, the beautiful church of St. Mary Queen of Peace Church was dedicated. Future pastors, including the second resident priest, Rev. Thomas Anderson, contributed to the internal decoration of the church, such as the striking stained glass windows. Fifty years later, we are celebrating not only the construction of this church, but more important, we are paying tribute to the profound effect this church has had on the Kingsford community. This church and its theological leaders have provided spiritual guidance and religious education to this community for 50 years, and that is truly something to celebrate. In 1995, this Nation is faced with a variety of problems that affect our families and our young people. That's why it is so important to have a center of worship. This church provides a foundation of faith that is necessary in today's society. So today, I am pleased to pay tribute to the leaders of this church and its parishioners for the enormous contributions they have made to the Kingsford community and Marquette diocese. And I hope my family and I are invited back to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the St. Mary Queen of Peace Church. I know my colleagues join me in honoring the parish community of St. Mary Queen of Peace Church as they celebrate its golden jubilee.

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. So we can speak about the process? Is that your ruling? It is OK to speak about the process of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this. Your ruling to the speaker in the well, was your ruling that we cannot speak or address on this floor matters pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or are we allowed to speak about the ethics process, which is published in the ethics rules that we all receive and is a public document? Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that we cannot even speak about the process, if we disagree that the process is not being properly followed out? We are now gagged and cannot talk even about the process?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, there are philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans on Medicare, and there is no doubt that the Republican party would like $270 billion in tax cuts, but why $270 billion in tax cuts in the Medicare program? To pay for the tax breaks for the wealthiest 1.1 percent of all Americans and for tax breaks for corporations. I sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce. As of October 10 we will begin the Medicare markup. We have never yet seen a bill. We have a 59-page summary. In that summary that we have read from cover to cover, nowhere, nowhere does it say that $270 billion will go and be reinvested into Medicare. Nowhere does it say that. If they wanted to save Medicare, take the $270 billion in tax cuts and put it back into the Medicare system. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is just what the U.S. News & World Report says: Tax exempt. You pay Uncle Sam. How come thousands of American corporations do not? Because they are going to take the $270 billion in tax cuts out of Medicare and give it to the corporations.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, an honor for me to bring to the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives and its membership an event that occurred just last week in my congressional district, the First District of Michigan. On Thursday, August 31, 1995, the Newberry Women's Club, of Newberry, MI, celebrated its 100th anniversary. I congratulate all members of this outstanding organization, both past and present, on reaching this milestone. First organized in 1895 as the Bay View Reading Circle, the small group of 13 women and men met to discuss issues of the day as well as matters relating to history and literature. The organization continued to grow and in 1914 joined the State Federation and drafted its first constitution and by-laws. With more members came more involved discussions of various topics of interest to the group including art, music, education, period furniture. Individual members also composed music, wrote poetry and even wrote and produced plays that received recognition through the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Over the years, the club changed its name to the Newberry Women's Club and involved itself in many social, civic and charitable projects including the organization of a club for girls, assistance in health clinics, contributions to the Bay Cliff Health Camp, filing Christmas and Easter baskets for the needy and even providing an arts and nursing scholarship that is awarded annually to a Newberry High School graduating senior. As the club's second century begins, their primary focus centers on education, the arts, public affairs, home life, conservation and international affairs. While their interests have certainly broadened, they have not forgotten their origins and the primary purpose of the original club. Mr. Speaker, it is through organizations like the Newberry Women's Club that our heritage is maintained while at the same time allowing us to look forward to meet the needs of people. I congratulate the Newberry Women's Club and wish them well in their next 100 years.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] to protect the authority of local governments to control public rights-of-way and to be fairly compensated for the use of public property. I have a chart here which shows the investment that our cities have made in our rights-of-way. Mr. Chairman, as this chart shows, the city spent about $100 billion a year on rights-of-way, and get back only about 3 percent, or $3 billion, from the users of the right-of-way, the gas companies, the electric company, the private water companies, the telephone companies, and the cable companies. You heard that the manage's amendment takes care of local government and local control. Well, it does not. Local governments must be able to distinguish between different telecommunication providers. The way the manager's amendment is right now, they cannot make that distinction. For example, if a company plans to run 100 miles of trenching in our streets and wires to all parts of the cities, it imposes a different burden on the right-of-way than a company that just wants to string a wire across two streets to a couple of buildings. The manager's amendment states that local governments would have to charge the same fee to every company, regardless of how much or how little they use the right-of-way or rip up our streets. Because the contracts have been in place for many years, some as long as 100 years, if our amendment is not adopted, if the Stupak-Barton amendment is not adopted, you will have companies in many areas securing free access to public property. Taxpayers paid for this property, taxpayers paid to maintain this property, and it simply is not fair to ask the taxpayers to continue to subsidize telecommunication companies. In our free market society, the companies should have to pay a fair and reasonable rate to use public property. It is ironic that one of the first bills we passed in this House was to end unfunded Federal mandates. But this bill, with the management's amendment, mandates that local units of government make public property available to whoever wants it without a fair and reasonable compensation. The manager's amendment is a $100 billion mandate, an unfunded Federal mandate. Our amendment is supported by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association. The Senator from Texas on the Senate side has placed our language exactly as written in the Senate bill. Say no to unfunded mandates, say no to the idea that Washington knows best. Support the Stupak-Barton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the coauthor of this amendment. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from the other side about gross revenues. You are right. The other side is trying to tell us what is best for our local units of government. Let local units of government decide this issue. Washington does not know everything. You have always said Washington should keep their nose out of it. You have been for control. This is a local control amendment, supported by mayors, State legislatures, counties, Governors. Vote yes on the Stupak-Barton amendment.