Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 2-1.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, on my amendment No. 2-1, we were very close tonight to having a final agreement on it. We worked on it for about 4 hours. We feel with a little more effort tonight and tomorrow morning, we may be able to get an agreement so we do not have to bring up my amendment tomorrow. We are trying to save the time tonight.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, an honor to bring to the attention of the U.S. Congress and the people of this Nation an event that is not only historically noteworthy, but one that will be most celebrated. On Friday, August 4, 1995, the Mackinac Island State Park will celebrate its 100th anniversary as Michigan's first State park. This outstanding facility, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, has been the source of enjoyment for not just the citizens of my State of Michigan and of the United States, but the world, as well. The park began first as a U.S. military reservation on Mackinac Island and later became this Nation's second national park. Upon expressing a desire to have this land as a State park, State officials worked for the passage of legislation in the 53d Congress that would permit the transfer of the land from the Federal Government to the State. On March 2, 1895, the authorizing legislation was passed. To wit: Act of Congress, 1895 military reservation on mackinac island turned over to the state of michigan Military Reservation on Mackinac Island, Michigan: The Secretary of War is hereby authorized, on the application of the governor of Michigan, to turn over to the State of Michigan, for use as a state park, and for no other purpose, the military reservation and buildings and the lands of the National Park on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Provided, That whenever the State ceases to use the land for the purposes aforesaid it shall revert to the United States. Page 946, Fifty-third Congress, Session III, Ch. 189, 1895. Following this act of Congress, discussions began between the State of Michigan and the Federal Government, culminating in a final transfer. To wit: Certificate of Transfer Whereas, By an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1895, the Secretary of War was authorized, on the application of the Governor of Michigan, to turn over to the State of Michigan, for use as a State park and for no other purpose, the military reservation and buildings and the lands of the National Park on Mackinac Island, Michigan said act providing that whenever the State ceases to use the land for the purpose aforesaid it shall revert to the United States; And Whereas, John T. Rich, Governor of the State of Michigan, has made formal application for the transfer to the State of Michigan of said military reservation and buildings and the lands of said National Park for the purpose specified in said act; Now Therefore, This is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby turns over to the State of Michigan, for use as a State park and for no other purpose, the military reservation and buildings and the lands of the National Park on Mackinac Island, Michigan, subject to the provisions of said act of Congress. Witness my hand and official seal this 3rd day of August, 1895. Secretary Lamont. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion marking the one hundredth anniversary of Mackinac Island State Park, I congratulate the State of Michigan and the Mackinac Island State Park Commission and on behalf of the park's multitude of visitors, residents and property owners, thank them for maintaining Mackinac Island State Park as the outstanding retreat it is.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, if we look on page 39 of the report and even coming back to H.R. 728, which we debated on February 14, 1995, under the title local law enforcement block grant, throughout the bill we talk about local law enforcement block grant. What we have merely done was do the perfecting that is allowed underneath hereby defining what local is. We are not saying that what the local law enforcement block grant is those communities with populations less than 50,000. This is a perfecting amendment to the authorized program. When we talk about local law enforcement, nowhere in the bill, whether it is the authorizing bill or whether it is this appropriation bill, do they identify and state to us what local is. This would be a perfecting amendment. Therefore, I feel it would be appropriate.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, No. 41, is what I would consider the rural setaside amendment. What this amendment does is set aside approximately $600 million for rural law enforcement programs. The money would come from the $2 billion set aside for the local law enforcement block grant. When this bill was being considered by both authorizers and appropriators, the President had requested over $10 million to be set aside for rural law enforcement needs. As we went through the appropriation process, no money was set aside for rural America. As we had our discussions yesterday on the local law enforcement block grant program, to put money into local block grants, we found during the debate yesterday that the money will go to those communities which have the highest crime rates, the highest crime rates. Those of us who live in rural areas find ourselves relatively safe and free from high crime rates. Therefore, our communities will not be able to benefit underneath the existing appropriation as passed yesterday by the House, especially when we talk about the local law enforcement block grant. The high crime rate areas usually are urban areas. The money, therefore, this $2 billion would to go the urban areas. Rural law enforcement has no access to money for police officers or for equipment underneath this program. Those of us in rural areas were very pleased that the President's COPS Program recognized the specific needs of rural areas. The President had recognized rural areas as being those communities of less than 50,000. Therefore, my amendment has also recognized rural areas as being those of less than 50,000 population. Twenty-seven to 30 percent of the people in this country live in rural areas. We pay taxes. We need help with law enforcement. We need help with all kinds of programs with the Federal Government. What we are asking for is that some of this money in this local law enforcement block grant be set aside. Yesterday the Clinton COPS Program was defeated. Therefore, our access to law enforcement, to equipment, to personnel, to help rural areas has been denied underneath the majority vote yesterday. So what my amendment says is of this $2 billion set aside in the local law enforcement area, 30 percent be set aside for rural areas. It is interesting to note that where we are asking the money to come from is local law enforcement block grants. We are taking the word ``local'' as being the small communities including our rural areas. So, as you consider this amendment, if you have a community in your district where your population is less than 50,000 you would be denied any kind of funding. The only place we can find where rural areas are considered at all in this bill is found on page 38 in the report where it says, for domestic violence and child abuse enforcement they have set aside $7 million annually for 27 to 30 percent of the country. Rural areas have more than just domestic violence and child abuse enforcement. So, therefore, we are asking the Federal Government for some help. With this amendment, amendment No. 41, we are asking then that 30 percent of the total local law enforcement block grant money be set aside for rural areas. point of order

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Yesterday we had a fight on this floor about the Clinton COPS Program and your local block grant that you wanted over there. You claimed there was no flexibility in the Clinton program. Now we have the Byrne grant, which gives us 26 different programs, including illegal aliens. So this is all kinds of flexibility you want, and now you say, ``No, let us not do that, let us keep all the money in one pot for illegal aliens.'' We are asking for 10 percent, or $30 million, of a $300 million pot to be used for the Byrne memorial grant which can be used for 26 different programs, which can be used with all the flexibility you need. My colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, spoke of DARE. In my district we do bake sales and pancake breakfasts to fund the DARE program. We are asking for a little help for the DARE program. In my district, which has 23,000 square miles, we have undercover drug teams, which is a combination of Federal, State, and local officers, the same team, the TNT team, the Hunt teams, the upset teams. They do undercover drug work with the Byrne grant money. The arrests have gone up by 400 percent because of the cooperative efforts we have here. We could not do it without the Byrne Memorial grant. What we are asking for underneath the Mollohan amendment is take 10 percent, $30 million of the $300 million, put it in the Byrne grants, and it still leaves $270 million for incarceration of illegal aliens. In Michigan that means $1 million more we have to work with under the DARE program and undercover drug teams. The Mollohan amendment makes sense from a law enforcement point of view. It makes sense for 49 of the 50 States in the Nation. Our No. 1 priority in this country is crime and crime fighting. Here is a program that works, with all the flexibility you wanted yesterday. It is here. Do not gut this amendment. Please, support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida would not yield, and the other gentleman from Florida mentioned the same thing, how Washington, DC, wants your block grant program because you have admitted those with the high crime rates will get the money. Those with lower crime rates will not get it. What happens at the end of the year when the crime rates go down? Underneath your formula, next year Washington, DC, will not get as much money, so if you are effective in fighting crime, the next year you will receive less money. Crime cannot be on a 12-month cycle where one year you have the money, the next year you do not. Get the facts straight. Your program is up and down. It is only funded for one year.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], for a fine job on a tough bill. I am here tonight during this general debate because I really take exception to the local law enforcement block grant that the majority party has put in here. They have gutted the Clinton COPS Program. They have put it all into this local law enforcement block grant and funded it with $3.2 billion. The problem is they called it local law enforcement block grant, but in their bill not one police officer is hired. We have no guarantee of any police officers working the street. Having been a city police officer, having been a State trooper, the best [[Page H 7626]] crime fighting we have is a police officer on the street working with the communities, working with the citizens they should serve. We have 20,400 police officers under the Clinton COPS Program. We have none under the $3.2 billion law enforcement block grant proposed. What does your application look like? Your administrative costs, you admit in your own report, are going to be about 2.5 percent. The other body says it is going to be 15 percent. You are going to have to fill out paperwork after paperwork in order to get a grant for, hopefully, a police officer or a police car. How much money is being awarded underneath your program will depend upon the crime index. The Department of Justice has done their analysis. They said how much a city will get will depend upon their crime index. The more crime you have underneath your proposal, the more money the jurisdiction will get. The next year, if the crime comes down, as crime is coming down now, they will lose money. Having been a police officer, you have got to fight crime more than 12 months. Take the city of New York, which has a 31 percent decrease in murders for 1995. Will they get 31 percent less money next year? You cannot have an effective program if every 12 months you are going to renew the amount of money you are going to give them. If they are effective, we should reward them for effective law enforcement and reducing crime, not punish them by taking away money. When you take a look at it, we have had the Clinton COPS Program for about 8 months. The Police Executive Research Forum actually did an analysis, contacted their members, 220 of them around the country, and said, ``What do you like, do you like this proposed local block grant that the Republican Party is putting forth, or would you keep the Clinton program, the Clinton COPS program?'' Of those 220 police executives who responded, only 5 percent, 5 percent support a block grant, discretionary block grant that you propose. The rest of them support the Clinton COPS programs. I am just not up here talking about this because of my 12 years in law enforcement, but every major police organization in the country opposes what you are trying to do in this bill. The FOP, Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, Police Executive Research Forum, National Troopers Coalition, National Sheriffs' Association, National Black Police Officers' Association, major city chiefs, U.S. Conference of Mayors, they are opposed to what you are doing with this block grant because they know what happened in the 1960's and 1970's when so much money was wasted on airplanes, on tanks, on real estate, on consultants on studies, and nothing ever went to fighting crime. So while the bill overall is a good bill, this local block grant that does not guarantee one police officer, that only 5 percent of the police executives in this country support, cannot win over my support and, therefore, we have asked, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has brought forth an amendment. It is going to be the first one up tonight to take $2 billion and put it back to guaranteed police officers across this Nation with the Clinton COPS program. Support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as we began the debate on this rule, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] had brought up the fact that his amendment to this bill was denied because he wanted to restore funding to the Clinton COPS Program. In this bill we are denied funding for the Clinton COPS Program. There is going to be an amendment later today offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] which will take $2 billion from the $3.2 billion in block grants to fund the Clinton COPS Program. The program to date is very efficient, it is a model of efficiency, it is effective, it is up, it is running and it is working. As the application form we can see being placed forward here, it is a two-page form. All you do, police officers around this Nation fill out this form, there is a fax number you can actually fax it in to the Department of Justice to get your grant approved. You do not need grant writers. you do not need consultants. It is a model of efficiency. The administrative cost for the COPS Program is 1.5 percent. Under the proposed block grants by my friends on this side of the aisle, it is 2.5 percent. If we take a look at the Senate block grant program, it is 15 percent for administrative costs. Here is a program that is up, it is running, and we have over 20,000 police officers on the street within the first year. The application, fill it out, fax it in. One of the big complaints we hear is there is no flexibility in the Clinton COPS Program. We are on round 2 of COPS MORE. COPS MORE stands for making officer redeployment effective. Today $41,700,000 was released for police officers to be put into civilian [[Page H 7613]] help, to be put in for equipment, to be put in overtime. All the flexibility that local police officers say they need, you find it in the COPS MORE Program. We are on round 2. There will be 3 more rounds yet this year. The other problem I have with this bill is when we requested and the Department and the President requested over $10 million for rural law enforcement. This bill strikes out the $10 million for rural law enforcement officers. Twenty-five percent of this country lives in rural areas. I was a police officer, a city police officer, a State police officer. I worked in rural areas. I have worked in the big city. Crime does not respect if you live in a rural area or in a big city. If a criminal is going to make an attack upon you, they don't care if you are Democrat or Republican, if you come from a big city of a little city. We have money here. We need it for the COPS Program. Underneath the current proposal put forth by the majority, there is no money whatsoever to hire one police officer. There is a wish, there is a hope. That is why police officers around the country support the Clinton COPS Program. Earlier today we had a press conference. The Fraternal order of Police support it, National Association of Police Organizations, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, International Union of Police Associations, Police Executive Research Forum, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers, National Troopers Coalition, National Sheriffs Association, National Black Police Officers Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs, and U.S. Conference of Mayors all support the COPS Program. I urge Members to support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 21, 1995, I was unavoidably absent from the House on official travel and missed five recorded votes on the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, H.R. 1976. Had I been here, I would have voted: ``No,'' on rollcall No. 550, the Zimmer amendment; ``No,'' on rollcall No. 551, the Obey amendment; ``No,'' on rollcall No. 552, the Kennedy amendment; ``No,'' on rollcall No. 553, the Deutsch amendment; and ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 554, final passage on the bill.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow or Wednesday, the Congress will vote to deny 1996 funding for the President's Cops on the Streets Program. The 1996 funding for this Federal program starts in just 68 days. The reason why funding will stop is politics, pure and simple. Everyone except the GOP politicians agree that the Cops Program is a success. In fact, a recent survey showed that 95 percent of the police executives, 95 percent out of 220, want to keep the Clinton Cops Program and not go back to the House-proposed block grant program. Police executives know what happened in the 1960's and in the early 1970's. The block grant program then squandered scarce taxpayer dollars on luxury items such as tanks, airplanes, real estate consultants, studies, police academies, just to say a few. Money was wasted and crime soared. Our cities, neighborhoods and taxpayers were the victims. Now the Republican Party wants to go back to these block grant programs, riddled with waste, fraud and corruption. Just when communities and cities in the past year have received over 20,000 cops and have witnessed a significant drop in violent crime, take New York City, for example. There is a 31-percent drop in homicides in this year. All across this country, rape, robbery, and assaults are down. One of the major factors contributing to this success in the Clinton Cops on the Street Program, more neighborhood policing. Here is a program that is contributing to the decrease in crime and less than a year later this successful program is being scrapped for politics. Here is a program that is efficient. Less than 1.5 percent in administrative cost. It is a single page to fill out the application form, not the cumbersome multipage, multifaceted, multi-bureaucratic review for a technical grant process, making police agencies jump from hoop to hoop, requiring grant writers, consultants and administrators. Under the Clinton Cops Program, administrative costs are low, less than 1.5 percent. Money goes into law enforcement and more cops on the street. If we look at the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill which will be on the floor Wednesday, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will introduce an amendment which will restore the $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1996 for the Cops on the Street Program. The money would come from striking that amount of money from the GOP block grant program in the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill. The Mollohan amendment would provide an additional 20,000 copes on the street over the next 12 months. Republican critics will say that what they want are local communities to decide on how to spend their law enforcement money. There is plenty of money for local block grants in the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill. There is a half-billion dollars for law enforcement grants. The Byrne block grants can be used for 22 different programs, and each program has been specifically approved by this Congress and the Department of Justice to prevent the abuses that were in the 1960's and 1970's. Mr. Speaker, underneath the current block grant program that we have as proposed by our Republican counterparts, in your community, if you are trying to rely on these funds to fight crime and if violent crime goes down in your community the following year, you would lose funds. So if you crack down and you help clean up your neighborhoods, prevent crime, underneath the block grant program proposed by our friends, you would see your funding go down. If you are in a police crackdown, you lose funding. The President and Democrats believe you must reward communities that effectively fight crime, not punish them. When we have this bill up tomorrow or Wednesday, whatever day it comes before this House, I hope that all my colleagues will look very closely at the block grant program. I hope they will support the Mollohan amendment which will move $1.8 billion back into the Clinton Cops Program. Having been a police officer myself for the last 12 years, before I came into this job, it always seemed like police officers, law enforcement were always at the end of the political game. I remember being in the State Police in 1979 and in 1980 in which there was a budget cut. What did we do even though we gave up pay increases and that? They ended up cutting State troopers from our State, just like in 1979 and 1980 in Michigan. I know many of you said, ``Well, that happened in Michigan. It won't happen here in the Federal Government.'' Let me remind my colleagues on June 29, 1995, rollcall vote 458, on basically a party line vote, all but one Republican voted for the bill, you cut $2.5 billion from the block grant program. Not only does politics come in when we are talking about law enforcement, how we fight crime in Michigan, but it also appeared here on this House floor less than a month ago. In my 12 years, I have seen politics play a vital role in how crime is fought, how officers are funded, and right now the pollsters tell us crime is the number one concern for the voters. Yet we are having proposals which will actually punish police officers for doing their job because they will get less money the following year to fight crime. While we are dealing in a time of declining resources, we must put our resources where it will do the most good for the most amount of people. That has been time and time again in the Clinton Cops Program. Don't just take it from me, but if you look at a list of who supports the Clinton Cops Program, the Fraternal Order of Police support it, the National Association of Police Organizations, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, International Union of Police Associations, Police Executive Research Forum, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Troopers Coalition, Police Foundation, National Sheriffs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mr. Speaker, when we debate this bill on Wednesday before this body, I hope that the Members will support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today, July 21, 1995, marks the beginning of the annual convention of the National Association of Counties in Atlanta, GA. Most of my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will likely have one or more of their county officials in attendance, but this year's conference has a very special significance to the First District of Michigan, this Member and especially to one of my constituents, not to mention a friend. Mr. Doug Bovin of Gladstone, MI, who currently serves as president of the Delta County Board of Commissioners, will be installed as president of the National Association of Counties today, Friday, July 21, 1995. I and the entire First Congressional District of Michigan salute Mr. Bovin on his new office and extend to him our best wishes for a successful term in office. Doug Bovin has personified public service for the past 28 years. It was in 1967 that he won election to his first public office on the Gladstone City Commission. In just 2 years, he sought and won his race for mayor of the community, and is believed to be the youngest person ever elected to that position in Gladstone. Recognized by others throughout Delta County for his leadership, understanding of public issues and ability to help people, Mr. Bovin was encouraged to seek the office of county commissioner in 1976, a position he has held for the past 19 years and the last 12 as chairman. Over the years, Doug has broadened his leadership in several ways. He has served as president of the Michigan Association of Boards of Health and then as president of the Michigan Association of Counties in the mid-1980's. Having a firm grasp on State issues, Doug understood the importance of regional matters and the effect they had on the State and his home area. To this end, he organized the Great Lakes Association, a group of county officials from States that border the Great Lakes as well as Iowa, and served as the first association president in 1990. Doug's work in the Great Lakes region has led to his deep involvement with the National Association of Counties where he has held three vice presidencies. He now will move to the presidency of the organization. And despite his personal and political growth, Doug has never forgotten his obligations in Delta County and has never placed the interests of his constituents above his own. Mr. Speaker, Doug Bovin has dedicated most of his life to public service, but to his credit, has always made his family his main priority. His wife, Bonnie, and children, Carrie and Dan are very proud of Doug as are the people of Michigan's First Congressional District. Again, our congratulations to Doug Bovin, President of the National Association of Counties.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the amendment by Mr. Kennedy to the Interior appropriations bill. This amendment is designed to reduce funds to the Forest Service for the construction of roads for the preparation of timber sales, in roadless areas. The amendment is also designed to reduce funds to the Forest Service for timber sales in roadless areas. If enacted, this amendment would shrink the amount of timber acreage suitable for harvesting by roughly one-third. One-third. The Kennedy amendment would have the effect of taking more than 60 million acres and essentially designating them as ``wilderness'' areas. Sixty [[Page H 7131]] million acres, an area nearly the size of New England. The proposed road construction budget for fiscal year 1996 will provide a total of less than 100 miles of roads in our forests, 100 miles for a total area of nearly two-thirds of a million acres. This averages out to roughly one mile of road for every 1,000 square miles, an area almost the size of the State of Rhode Island, or one-half the size of Delaware. Most of all, the Kennedy amendment will have a definite impact on small communities, rural communities already hit hard by the decline in funding of roughly one-third in the Federal timber sales program over the past 5 years. Federal timber sales have declined by 60 percent during this same period, a decline that has brought about closures of hundreds of mills and the unemployment of tens of thousands of Americans. This has been the unfortunate reality for many of my constituents, and I believe my colleague from Massachusetts would agree with this Member from Michigan that the last thing we need in America are more jobless, more closed businesses, and more communities struggling to survive. I ask my colleagues to help these workers, to help these companies, and to help the many communities that will be impacted by this amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Medicare Program approaches, I am outraged that the Republicans are trying to force the American public to swallow devastating cuts to the Medicare Program, cuts that will completely gut the Medicare Program. Every Medicare beneficiary who receives part B Medicare coverage now pays a monthly premium of $46.10. But under the Republican plan, the part B premium will go to $110 per month. That is how they get more money into the Medicare system--they make you pay more. The proposed cuts to the Medicare Program go beyond higher premiums for Medicare recipients, those whose modest household budgets and Social Security checks are already stretched to the breaking point. As a direct result of the cuts to the Medicare Program, reimbursement rates will drop, so doctors and hospitals will have to absorb a greater share of the health care costs. These costs will then be passed on to the Medicare recipients. In addition, fewer health care services will be offered to senior citizens and working families. Some doctors will not be able to accept patients, and some hospitals in rural areas will have to close their doors completely. The bottom line is these Republican cuts to Medicare will drive senior citizens and low income families into a second-class health care system.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] for their assistance on this amendment. This amendment is to allow a harbor to be capped in accordance with an administrative order negotiated between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers and potentially responsible parties at the Manistique Harbor. EPA has agreed that a hybrid remedy of dredging and capping could be necessary to cap PCB's in the Manistique Harbor. This agreement was just entered into within the last 2 weeks. The dredging which is part of the remedy negotiated here has already begun in the Manistique Harbor. We would like to cap yet this year. In order to cap this year, we would have to change the river level, the depth of the river. It is now 18 feet. We would have to change it to 12.5 feet. We would like to do it this year, before the ice moves in in northern Michigan, by the first of the year. Mr. Chairman, we are scheduled, under the negotiated agreement between all the parties, to begin capping on August the 1st. I have been able to draft this amendment, and I again would like to thank the principals involved in helping me to draft this amendment to make it acceptable to this legislation. We are not here asking for an authorization of any money now or in the future. Any costs associated with this amendment will be picked up by the potential responsible parties with this negotiated settlement. I am not here for, nor does my amendment request, any authorizing funds or reprogramming funds. This is not an authorization amendment. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Any delay would be a serious delay in the negotiated settlement between the parties, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. As I said, capping is slated to begin next month. If we could pass it through with this legislation now, we will move on to the Senate and we are confident we can get it done yet this year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would once again ask that this amendment be adopted as written and I appreciate the cooperation of all the parties involved.

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

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to bring to the attention of the U.S. House Representatives the efforts and achievements of a constituent of mine, Marylou Ikens, and the Huron Shores Writing Institute of which she is executive director. Located in Michigan's First Congressional District, the institute is an exchange program with the goals of promoting inter-cultural understanding between a variety of cultures. The international attention and acclaim that has been earned by the institute is much the result of Mrs. Ikens's efforts. A former piano teacher and visionary, Mrs. Ikens has inspired many who might not have dared to reach beyond the boundaries of their community to explore not only the world beyond their local borders, but also neighboring countries, cultures, and ideas. Her boundless energies have invigorated many and she can well remember the students who have been inspired to seek and continue their education as a result of their stay at the institute. Mrs. Ikens left an indelible impression on all of these people. Mrs. Ikens's boundless energy has produced what is now a series of seven books on the exchange of cultures throughout the world that are now used in secondary schools and universities worldwide. Marylou Ikens is to be commended for making her long-range dream a reality--one which stands as an on-going think tank, educational institute, and virtual evolving learning center. Michigan's First Congressional District is proud of its own Marylou Ikens and of the many contributions she and the institute have made to our own culture as well as to cultures around the world.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we begin another debate on the budget. The issue is how will we balance the budget? Who will be helped and who will be hurt? The answer is now clear. The Republican majority wants to help only the richest 1 percent in this country, the millionaires, the billionaires. The Republican majority wants to help the military- industrial complex by buying more toys like the B-2 bomber that the Pentagon told us we did not even need. Mr. Speaker, how do Republicans balance the budget? By giving the wealthiest a tax break and buying more toys for the Pentagon. How do Republicans pay for this? By cutting the programs that will help out our seniors, our veterans, our students; by cutting Medicare, by cutting Medicaid, by cutting the veterans' programs, by cutting $10 billion out of financial student assistance programs and by cutting social security. The issue is, who will we help and who will we hurt? Will it be the millionaires and billionaires that will be helped? Will it be the seniors and the veterans and the students that will be hurt? I and the Democrats will stand with the seniors, the veterans and the students.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to the Village of Republic in Michigan's Upper Peninsula which is celebrating its 125th anniversary this year. The pioneers who settled in northern Michigan, and especially in the area later known as Republic, survived boom times and bad times with traditional American fortitude. From the first recorded purchase of land in the area by William Pratt on March 13, 1851, the town, originally known as Iron City, flourished. From the beginning, iron mining was an important industry to Republic. In 1856, an iron vein was discovered by explorer Silas Whetstone Smith, for whom the bay and mountain or iron were named. The first and most successful of the iron companies was formed in 1870. On November 3, 1871, Peter Pascal, an agent of the Republic Iron Mining Co., directed clearance of lands for the company. The first permanent settlers arrived in 1872, and mining operations began by 1873. Mining and lumbering industries attracted railroads, and the town flourished. Like many other towns in Michigan, Republic had a prosperous lumbering industry, especially from the 1870's to the early 1900's. Lumbering was an important source of employment, and it continues to be a thriving industry. By 1928, the economy slowed down, and Republic residents, along with the rest of the country, found themselves in the midst of the Great Depression. With the advent of the New Deal and the creation of the Works Progress Administration, many improvements were made to the town and surrounding area. Although Republic was for many years a mining community, the closing of the mine in 1980 presented an enormous challenge to local residents. Fires in the area also took a tool, but the village rebuilt. Today, Republic is a viable, dynamic, and friendly community. [[Page E 1313]] As part of its celebration of its 125th anniversary, Republic residents, the Republic Area Historical Society, and the Ethnic Days Committee have planned several events, including a Mid-Summer Festival in Munson Park, a Quasquicentennial Home Tour, and construction of a Heritage Quilt. I know my colleagues join me in honoring the residents of the Village of Republic as they celebrate the 125th anniversary of the founding of Republic.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, corporate welfare is defined as payment of Federal assistance in the form of subsidies, tax credits, and payments to business. Such corporate welfare has grown to be so widespread that nearly every member of the Fortune 500 receives some sort of subsidy. Besides the enormous burden corporate waste places on the Federal budget, subsidies serve to weaken businesses; incentive to be competitive, efficient, and productive. Reducing corporate subsidies is an important step in controlling spending. By sharply reducing these programs, we could eliminate unproductive programs while freeing much-needed funds for deficit reduction. In fact, cutbacks in corporate waste would have far more impact in reducing the deficit than many of the current efforts by Republicans to cut discretionary spending. The Republicans have proposed to cut billions from programs that assist families, children, seniors, farmers, and veterans. Yet, while Republicans [[Page H 6096]] seek to gut programs that allow American families to make ends meet, over $160 billion a year in corporate welfare is buried in our Tax Code in the form of giveaways and loopholes. It is indefensible to ask Americans to sacrifice without asking big business to do its fair share. I challenge the majority to cut aid to dependent corporations.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, having spent the last week in my district, it is obvious to me and to the 130,000 seniors in northern Michigan that the Republican budget proposals are wrong. In their budget resolution, they want to balance the budget on the backs of our seniors, veterans, and college students. The Republicans want to cut $282 billion from Medicare over the next several years. They say they must cut $282 billion to save Medicare. Yet Medicare fund trustee Stanford G. Ross has testified that Medicare needs $130 billion to remain solvent. Not $282 billion. Why the extra $152 billion? The Republicans want that money to pay for the tax breaks they are giving to large corporations and the top 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans, the millionaires and the billionaires, while they slash Medicare. You know what else? The GOP plan as passed by the other body says that they will pass a balanced budget by 2002, but when you look at the bill, they still have a $113 billion deficit. You know where they are going to make it up? By borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have broken their contract by using Medicare to balance the budget and by using Social Security to balance the budget.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about Medicare Select at the same time the Republican leadership has passed a bill making unprecedented cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs which will result in limited access to or complete elimination of rural health care. The cuts of $250 billion by the Republicans are the deepest spending reductions in the 30-year history of the health industry for our senior citizens. In fact, Medicare cuts hurt not just seniors but everybody, including our small hospitals. Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries live in rural America where there is often only a single hospital in the county. These rural hospitals tend to be small and serve primarily Medicare patients. Significant cuts to the Medicare Program will force many rural hospitals to cut back on the services they offer, or they will have to turn to the taxpayers for assistance in order to survive. Most significantly, these devastating cuts would force many rural hospitals to close their doors completely. This would mean that many of us will have no hospitals to turn to in a time of medical crisis. Medicare Select, coupled with the cuts, will require increasing the cost of not just Medicare, but also the Medicare Select policy, or the MediGap policy, no matter what we have. It is projected that each of the 25 hospitals in my district in northern Michigan will lose an average of $746 per Medicare patient in the year 2000. Medicare Select will not replace this lost revenue. Seniors will be forced to replace the lost revenue. Meanwhile, Republicans have already voted to give a $20,000 per year tax cut to the wealthiest 1.1 million Americans in this country. That is Medicare Select: A select few will benefit while the seniors will suffer. It is imperative the people of northern Michigan have access to quality medical care. That is why I will continue to fight against the Medicare Select proposal. I will continue to fight against the Republican proposal to cut Medicare and Medicaid which is so devastating to Michigan hospitals.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the House Ethics Committee has refused to hire an outside counsel to investigate the five ethics charges against the Speaker. Without an outside counsel, the ethics charges will have to be investigated by House Members. That means we will have politicians investigating politicians. Being a former law enforcement officer, I believe, and I have always voted, that professional law enforcement officials should do investigations of other Members of this House, not politicians. Five dark clouds of doubt hang over this Chamber. Let us have a special outside counsel to investigate the ethics charges hanging over the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we need an outside counsel to do a professional investigation, not politicians. Let us remove the five dark clouds of doubt and appoint a special outside counsel now.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when U.S. Marshal Robert Forsyth of Augusta, GA was shot and killed in January 1794 while trying to serve court papers, he became the first peace officer in the United States to die in the line of duty. Since then about 13,500 police officers from all types of law enforcement fields have fallen in the line of duty. My district in northern Michigan has been hard hit by the all-too- common tragedy of police officer slaying. In the Upper Peninsula, which has about 3 percent of Michigan's population, 18 police officers have died since the 1920's. In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed that for 1 week in the month of May Americans would commemorate National Police Week. National Police Week honors the service related deaths of law enforcement officers. As a former state trooper, as an Escanaba City police officer, this week has special meaning for me. And as a former police officer and now as a legislator, I am particularly concerned about recent Republican efforts to weaken legislation designed to reduce crime in America. In 1994, Congress passed the toughest crime bill in this Nation's history. The President's crime bill has several very important elements designed to fight crime on our streets. Most importantly, the crime bill directs that additional police officers be put on the streets to fight crime, because there is no better crime fighting tool than police officers proactively patrolling our neighborhoods. The President's plan to put 100,000 more police on America's streets represents the Federal Government's largest commitment ever to local law enforcement. The President's COPS program is already working. Half of the Nation's law enforcement agencies from jurisdictions of all sizes throughout this country have already received grants to add 17,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, the new Republican majority wants to turn back the clock by gutting the most effective element of last year's crime bill, the COPS program. Not only do they want to scrap the President's plan to put 100,000 more police officers on the street, but they also [[Page H5174]] intend to delete every single prevention program. Additionally, the Republican budget measure that we debated here today proposes a $5 billion cut in the crime trust fund over the next 6 years. The measure directs that the justice assistance grant programs would be consolidated into a single block grant program. This plan will only serve to weaken our crimefighting ability by taking money away from law enforcement officers. Certainly there is much more Congress can and must do to reduce crime and violence in this country. Crime continues to be the number one concern for millions of working families. That is why it is imperative that Congress not gut the crime bill as a means of playing partisan politics. Therefore, I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, I say to the Republicans, stop playing politics with the crime bill. Respect the men and women in law enforcement. Instead of providing them with a few encouraging words during National Police Week, give law enforcement the financial assistance they need to keep them secure in their jobs and to keep us all secure in our neighborhoods.