Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1 and in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from California [Mr. Miller]. I am a strong supporter of the bill before us, H.R. 1, and was pleased to support it in the committee earlier this month. Contrary to what my colleagues may hear today, the bill does not affect the 40-hour workweek or existing rights of overtime pay. It also has built-in protections and safeguards to ensure that employees are not coerced into choosing comptime. The base bill allows employees to decide how they want to be paid for their overtime work, either in dollars or comptime. I once had a job where this policy was in effect, both as an employee as well as a boss, and I know that it works. When I no longer serve in this Congress, I would strongly prefer a job where I could put in a 40- hour week over 4 days and have a Monday or Friday off to spend time with my family, and I would think that that would be a worthwhile and attractive alternative to many of us in this Chamber today. Today I have heard a lot about being forced to choose one or the other. That does not happen. What we want to do is give workers the opportunity to choose for themselves what they want. The opponents of this legislation have offered lots of amendments, but they have not offered an amendment to take away this benefit from those employees that today have exactly this type of practice in the workplace. My sense is if they did, that those employees that have that opportunity today would raise a real hue and cry against what this Congress would do. Mr. Chairman, it works. I saw it work. We need to have this work for all employees and that is why I am glad to support this legislation this afternoon.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on legislation I introduced earlier this year to temporarily waive the Medicare enrollment composition rules for the Wellness Plan in Michigan. The bill enjoys bipartisan support in the House and Senate and passed the Commerce Committee on September 18 by a unanimous vote. H.R. 4012 would allow the Wellness Plan a waiver from the so-called 50-50 rule, which requires that any plan which serves as a Medicare HMO have at least 50 percent of its enrollees as non-Medicare and non- Medicaid recipients. The Wellness Plan is a Michigan-based 501(c)(3) federally qualified HMO which serves a predominately Medicaid-based population. This plan had begun to serve the Medicare population under a health care prepayment plan. However, HCPP contracts were effectively frozen as of January 1, 1996, as a result of changes made under the Social Security and Technical Corrections Act of 1994 which subjects HCPP contractors to MediGap laws. Because of this, the Wellness Plan has been unable to enroll any more Medicare beneficiaries. This plan has been recognized by two Secretaries of HHS and by Presidents Bush and Clinton. It serves a substantial portion of the Medicaid population in southeast Michigan and has been doing so for almost 25 years. It is financially sound and has an unblemished record of providing health care to this population. Although the bill had passed the major committee of jurisdiction and enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate, it became a victim of time constraints and was not able to be scheduled for a vote in the House before Congress adjourned for the year. Nonetheless, we made important progress this year and I believe we are in solid position to pass this bill early next year when Congress reconvenes for the 105th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and the House leadership to achieve this goal.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. Mr. Chairman, as I was watching the debate on TV and came over from my office, I know that we have heard from a number of different outside industry groups that in fact this amendment takes care of some of the concerns that they have. There is an exception here in this bill that is labeled as such, and there is an exception for the patient when there is a new use of a composition of matter or biotechnological process. It is unfortunate that the Committee on the Judiciary has not moved on this. This is an important issue.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like my friend from Massachusetts to respond to the question that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] raised in his opening statement about the Heimlich maneuver. Does the gentleman think that that should be patented and get a bill for that? That is one of the things that this goes against.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I support the base bill, and I would say that I also support this motion to recommit, which does not delete, eliminate, or change anything in the present bill, as we will vote on final passage on this measure whether or not this motion to recommit passes or fails. If Members are like me, a very happily married man with two wonderful kids, this issue does not come up a lot in my household. But what this motion to recommit does is it simply adds a section calling upon the GAO to conduct a study determining the benefits, rights, and privileges given to those in marriage but not those in long-term domestic partnerships. As part of the study it will also look at how other countries have legally dealt with the long-term relationships outside of marriage. It changes no law. It only asks the GAO to give us the information requested by October 1, 1997. Then we are free to use such information to decide what if any policy changes we want to make. Let us affirm our commitment to traditional marriage, but let us do so in a way that respects and is sensitive to those in long-term domestic partnerships. For example, if our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson, were sick or injured, why should his partner not have automatic visitation privileges or automatic doctoral consultations, which many today have been denied? Madam Speaker, when the former committee staff director, Matt Fletcher, of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, lost his partner of 16 years to AIDS, Matt could not sign the documents at the funeral home. All this motion to recommit does is ask for a study, ask for a study, so when the study is completed in 1\1/2\ years from now or so, we can have better information with which to deal with this issue. I ask Members to vote to recommit the bill, and I also ask that Members vote for final passage, whether or not the motion to recommit passes.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I met with a number of high school students out on the House steps. They had a lot of questions, particularly as it pertained to the deficit. I reminded them about my record and I told them about my priority: Education. I was a cosponsor of this bill when it first came up several years ago. It sounded like a wonderful idea. But we have spent more than $1 billion so far and it just has not worked. In fact, the statistics have come out and said that it is an average of about $26,000 a student. That is not worth it. As we look at education, the needs for parents today to send their kids, sons and daughters, on to higher education, it is important that those doors are open, but not at $26,000 a student. We can find a lot of Pentagon coffee pots to buy before we buy a pig in a poke like this program here. I would just urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We have tried it for a couple of years. It has not worked. As I have talked to my students and families in higher education institutions, there is not a lot of love for this program. It does not work. We need to be surgeons here, particularly with the deficit we have today. We need to weed out programs that do not work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. William Sinclair. Please join me in congratulating Bill as he retires after spending almost two decades as the city manager of my hometown, St. Joseph, MI. For 18 great years he has dedicated his hard work and efforts into making St. Joseph a quality city and a great a place to call home. Bill's career in public service reaches back to 1954 when began working as a surveyor and cartographer for the city of Detroit. His time in Detroit was interrupted for 2 years by a tour of duty in the U.S. Army. After spending a few more years in Detroit, Bill lent his engineering expertise to the cities of Birmingham and Rochester before calling the west side of the State his new home. He has also been active in other aspects of the community. Bill has served on the Twin Cities Airport Board, the Harbor Authority, and has been a fixture in the Michigan Municipal League. Over the past 18 years, local officials, city councils, businesses, and residents, alike, have all correctly sung the praises of this wonderful civic leader. He has been a fixture in our community and an integral part of its growth. His dedication, vision, and commitment has been an important ingredient in the rebirth of the twin cities area. Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky enough to work with Bill Sinclair on many different occasions. Time and time again I have counted on Bill for his assistance, his advice and his abundant energy. I know that though Bill is officially retiring, looking out for the best interests of the people of the St. Joseph-Benton Harbor area will continue to be a major focal point in his life. Someone this dedicated simply could not have it any other way. Mr. Speaker, please join with me on behalf of the people of Michigan's Sixth Congressional District in thanking Bill Sinclair for 18 years of dedication to St. Joseph, MI. I wish him and his wife, Hilda, a long, healthy, and happy retirement. All the best, Bill, and thank you for all that you have done.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that this amendment is new. It applies only to new lands. What do you tell a small community that may have an Indian tribe reserve land in their community and tell those folks, the small business folks and others, whether they will sell gasoline or cigarettes, that I am sorry, they are exempt. You are not. That is not right. What this amendment tries to do is to level the playing field between legitimate small businesses and businesses that Indians establish and, by the way, it applies only to the sales of non-Indians. It does not apply to within the reservation to their own people. So I would ask my colleagues to support this. It is a step in the right direction to try and level the playing field for new lands that are so designated so that those businesses, whether they sell cigarettes or gasoline or any other State and local taxes that they may have to comply with, they are on an equal footing with their new competitors. That is why I think that this amendment is a good one. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Kalamazoo Central High School Mock Trial Team. They defeated 37 other teams to earn the National High School Mock Trial Championship held recently in Pittsburgh, PA. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating students Andrew Fink, Joelle Renstrom, Linnaea Eberts, Ursula McTaggart, Aida Hussen, Ghislaine Storr, Jordan Klepper, Aash Bhatt Sonya Datta-Sandhu, Nichk Dybek, and Coach Sherry Myers, Assistant Coach Keith Platte, and Legal Coach Kurt McCamman. These students worked hard in preparation for this important event. Their many hours of commitment, practice and dedication stand as an inspiration to us all. I am confident that we will continue to hear great things about these students. We are counting on them to provide this Nation with the leadership that will carry us into the next century. This accomplishment not only says a lot about the student, it also speaks well for the Kalamazoo Public School System and the many quality people there that are truly making a difference. Again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Kalamazoo Central High School Mock Trial Team, winner of this year's national championship.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I take the well today to remind my colleagues that you and I were not here in the House when the warning signals were up about the S&L debacle back in the early 1980's. Those scoundrels from Texas and California, Florida and Illinois took the taxpayers for $150 billion, and it was wrong. Congress should have acted in the early 1980's, and they did not. Mr. Speaker, we have a great program that seniors in this country love called Medicare. The warning signals were out there a year ago that it was going to go belly up by the year 2002. This body did nothing. We tried to get bipartisan cooperation and nothing happened. Today a report is coming out saying that it is a year worse. Instead of going belly up in 2002, it is going to go belly up in 2001, $90 billion worse than it was last year. Three cabinet members are going to sign that report as they did last year. Yet we read in the CQ facts record for Monday, Laura Tyson says that the trust fund is solvent. Bills will be paid and the administration's plan would assure solvency for a decade. Let us walk the walk instead of talk the talk. It is going bankrupt. We need to do something about it.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an accomplished educator, a community leader, and a dear friend, Mr. Fred Richardson. After 38 quality years spent in school systems across Michigan and Indiana, Mr. Richardson will be stepping down this year as superintendent of St. Joseph Public Schools. Mr. Richardson began his education career as a teacher in 1958 in Shipshewana, IN. He was quickly promoted to principal and spent time at the helm of a number of schools in Indiana before returning to teach and become principal in Fennville in his native Michigan. After spending many years with the Hillsdale Community Schools, he was eventually recognized for his talents and promoted to superintendent. In 1982, he left Hillsdale to assume the same role in the St. Joseph Public Schools. During his tenure there he was able to turn the cash strapped organization around, balancing the system's books and creating an abundance of financial reserves. In fact, the district just recently became debt free thanks in part to Mr. Richardson's guidance. Praised by staff, faculty, and school boards, Mr. Richardson has always cared most about the kids. Time and time again, his efforts with the children of Michigan have earned him high marks. A truly first- class individual, Mr. Richardson has also found time in his busy schedule to share his experience with the next generation of educators by teaching at Western Michigan University. As Fred enters this next stage of his life, my wife Amey joins me in wishing him a long and healthy retirement. Thank you, Fred, for so many great years of quality service to southwest Michigan. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Fred Richardson on his retirement from a remarkable, 38-year-long career in education.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Furse amendment. Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I applaud the subcommittee this year and the full committee as well, for the bill itself is $1.1 billion less than last year's spending bill, which I think is a step in the right direction. However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am dismayed that it is still $900 million more than what the Pentagon asked for. This amendment seeks to cut $17 million of the $900 million in unrequested funds. The money is designated, as the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] indicated, for barracks improvements in Germany. While there is nothing wrong with improving the quality of life for our troops, there is something wrong in asking the taxpayer to spend $17.5 million for a military project that the Pentagon does not have in its long-range plan. It did not request it, and consequently it must not see the need for this project. Mr. Chairman, I know that it is hard to cut spending. We do not win a lot of battles, and I regret that this amendment is likely to fail. I wish that we had the line-item veto in effect for this year's spending appropriations instead of next year's. It would have been a good first test. But unfortunately it does not start until next year. Mr. Chairman, $17 million is a lot of money. It is a lot of money in anybody's checkbook, whether it be the Federal Government's or somebody else's. And if we are going to start in cutting back on waste and unneeded projects, this is where we ought to start. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join with me and the Citizens Against Government Waste and the Taxpayers for Common Sense in supporting this amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I care deeply about the deficit and maintaining a strong national defense. Next year we will be spending more just on the interest servicing the $5.5 trillion national debt than all of the Defense Department budget and foreign aid put together; and, consequently, we need to look under every rock and stone for savings. Last year a similar amendment passed this body 273 to 176. Our amendment this year provides flexibility to offset the cost of our troops overseas by our European NATO Allies. If we can ask Americans to tighten their belts on a whole host of issues, is there any reason why we cannot ask our European allies to do the same? This amendment can save the taxpayers $11 billion. That is certainly worth a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater crime, I do not believe, than a child that has been molested, perhaps killed, or not killed but sexually molested by somebody else. I had a woman in my district talk to me in tears about her 9-year-old that was raped. Thank goodness he was convicted. He is now serving in Jackson Prison. But he is going to get out. The experts say that he is going to do it again and again and again. However, when he gets out, I want a law like Megan's law, so whether he goes to St. Joe or Kalamazoo or South Bend, anyplace else, the victim, the family, the police, the community are going to be able to watch him forever. He is going to have a tattoo on his head that is going to be there forever. Mr. Speaker, last year I had two little boys, sons of migrant workers from Texas, in my district who were stolen allegedly by a sexual molester, because he has not been convicted yet I use the word allegedly, out from Iowa, picked them up in the twin cities in Michigan; and thank goodness, because it was a nationwide case and CNN and ABC News and ``Good Morning America'' had his picture, they found him in New Orleans. I do not want that to happen again to that family. Something like this that, thank goodness, a number of States have passed on their own, ought to be a national law. That is why I rise in support, to make sure that we will take whatever step we can, so no family will ever have it happen to them as it has happened to people in my district. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for a very strong bipartisan bill so we can try and end this terrible human tragedy that, unfortunately, strikes far too many Americans.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long and arduous process. Putting together the revised export provisions for drug and device exports would not have been possible without the help of my good friends and colleagues, the chairman of the Commerce Committee Tom Bliley, and the ranking member on the committee, John Dingell. Their efforts have made our goal of allowing easier exporting of these important medical products a reality, and I thank them and their staffs for all of their hard work. As many of you know, I introduced H.R. 1300 in May of last year. Mr. Rich Rakow, a constituent of mine in southwest Michigan, who works for one of the drug manufacturers in my district came to me during a town meeting about a problem his company was having exporting its products. It seems that under our current export restrictions, it is virtually impossible to ship drugs or medical devices out of this country for use in other countries, even if they meet the needs and requirements of the importing country. I found this, well, unbelievable, and directed Jeff Myers on my staff to look into the matter. What they reported to me was troublesome, to say the least. Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other blood products were moving overseas, taking with them high paying, highly skilled manufacturing jobs. Part of the reason for this is the current inability of the FDA to quickly turn around products submitted to them for approval. The other part of the equation, however, is the export provisions that were put into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1986. The goal of those amendments were simple. They attempted to open the door to the export of drugs to our trading partners overseas. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The regulated industries have made very clear to me that these provisions are strangling their ability to compete, and this is causing an alarming increase of medical manufactures moving overseas. The compromise language included in the bill before us today, H.R. 3019, seeks to change this pattern. Senators Hatch, Kennedy, and Gregg, Chairman Bliley, Ranking Member Dingell, and myself, along with the FDA, worked on the language included in this bill. We worked to reconcile the differing language passed by the respective chambers included in the omnibus funding bill for fiscal year 1996. There is broad agreement on what the language in the bill means. I would like to discuss some of the ideas in the bill where there may be some misunderstanding in the future. It is very clear that the majority of the Members believe that the export provisions are a trade issue first and foremost. Restrictions on trade often mean the loss of jobs right here in the United States. However, Senator Kennedy voiced a number of concerns with H.R. 1300, and its companion bill, S. 593. His major objection, as I understand it, was that the FDA would not have any control at all over the exporting of drugs and devices. With those objections in mind, the mini-conference set out to mete out a compromise. The FD&C Act, under this amendment, is altered to make it easier to export drugs and devices, as I have said before. It is also amended to make it generally easier to import unapproved subassemblies of these medical products, for the manufacture and export of finished products. This is very important. The plain meaning of amendments to section 801(e) of the FD&C Act as it relates to imports is that no subassembly which is brought into this country solely for the purpose of manufacturing products to be exported would be restricted, as long as the company keeps records of the imported product, and destroys any of the imported subassemblies that are not to be used for the manufacture of exported products. Furthermore, the importation of blood components, source plasma, or source leukocytes is permitted as long as the company importing these products follows the guidelines in Section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act, or if the Secretary has set up appropriate guidelines for the importation of these products. It is my understanding that there are companies in the United States that process these products for other countries, and this provision is meant to allow this to continue. The addition of new provisions in section 801(f)(1) and (2) have also raised some issues within the drug and device community, and I would like to address these concerns. This amendment is designed to allow the export of FDA-approved drugs and over-the-counter [OTC] products with labels that may differ from the labels approved in the United States. As all of the conferees are aware, the FDA approves not only the molecular entity that makes up the OTC, branded and generic products, but it also approves the label with indications and contraindications for usage. Traditionally, the FDA has taken the approval process for products which need approval under section 505 of the FD&C Act to mean that this includes the label, and have therefore read section 801(e) as meaning that the product must be labeled in accordance with U.S. law. Furthermore, the language included in 802(b)(1)(A) has been reviewed by the FDA, which has given us complete assurance that this law will apply to the export of all OTC and prescription drugs, as long as the drugs are legally marketable in one of the countries mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A), subsections (i) and (ii). This legislation does not require drugs to receive affirmative marketing approval if the laws of one of the countries mentioned in the bill do not require it. The framers of section 801(f)(1) and (2) mean this section to allow the export of FDA approved products, which are not approved in a country mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), to be exported directly to a country with a label required by that country. With the importing country's label, the product being shipped will not be regarded as misbranded or unapproved, specifically in respect to section 505 of the FD&C Act. Section 801(e)(1) of the FD&C Act states that ``a food, drug, device, or cosmetic intended for export shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded under this Act--''. Clearly, the framers of the amendments included in H.R. 3019 mean section (f)(1) and (2) to follow the language in 801(e)(1) and allow for the export of products from the United States with a label which accords to the specifications of the foreign manufacturer without becoming misbranded. Furthermore, it is definitely the intention of the framers of this amendment that section 801 and 802 are not additive. In other words, products being exported under 802 do not have to meet the requirements of 801, with the exception of 801(e)(1), subsection A through D. The framers did not intend to limit or otherwise restrict the export of animal drugs, insulin, or antibiotics. It is my understanding that there is a possibility that 801(f) (1) and (2) can be read to limit the export of these products, and that was certainly not the intent of this Member, or other Members of this conference. It is my hope that the FDA will accommodate the concerns voiced on this section for these products. Before the end of this Congress, I have been told by the Commerce Committee that we will address this issue in a technical amendment. I would also like to address the section dealing with products for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a disease which is not of significant prevalence in the United States Section 802(e)(1) is clearly meant to be another avenue by which companies, can export products. Products exported under this section need not meet the requirements of section 801. Devices were also of major concern to the conferees. Devices were specifically not included in 802(b)(2), because the current FDA practice of allowing for the export of devices that have an approved IDE is acceptable to the conferees. It is important to note here that this section has to do only with drugs not approved in the United States, or in one of the countries mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A), subsections, (i) and (ii). As I understand the current procedure, devices can be shipped after being reviewed by the FDA to other nations if they have an IDE and not a general approval. Last, I would like to address section 802(f)(5). Again, these are labeling requirements for exporting products approved in the so-called tier one countries mentioned in 802(b)(1)(A), subsections (i) and (ii) to countries not mentioned in that section. It is most certainly the understanding of the conferees that this section is to be interpreted as written only for those counties which are not tier one countries. Furthermore, it is the intention of the conferees that this section requires the Secretary to consult with the appropriate health official before making a finding which might necessitate the stopping of exporting these products. I am sure that we will revisit this issue in the future. Frankly, if it were up to me, there would be almost no restrictions on the export of medical products to nations which allow them for sale. In my mind, the job of the FDA is to protect the health and safety of the United States, and it is not to play health product policeman to the rest of the world. If a product is manufactured in accordance with the requirements and specifications of a foreign government, then I believe that it is insane for this country to deny the opportunity to manufacture this product here. No other nation on the face of this earth restricts the manufacture of medical products for export, because they know the value of these manufacturing jobs. While I believe that this is a true compromise, and it is, I also believe that we can and should do more to liberalize the treatment of trade in health products. It's about time we begin again to export products--not jobs.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this Chamber a rather disturbing element that I have learned about over the last couple of weeks and to share my thoughts with those in the Chamber with regard to an individual by the name of Judge Baer in New York. There is a Wall Street Journal editorial back in the end of January, and I will put all of these into the Record, but I just want to read a little piece of this article. It says: Winning the war on drugs won't be easy if the battles end up in courtrooms that like that of Harold Baer, Jr., of the Federal District Court in Manhattan. Judge Baer ruled Wednesday that 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin that police found in a car in the drug-wracked neighborhood of Washington Heights could not be used as evidence. It goes on to say that: In his State of the Union address that Mr. Clinton gave here in this Chamber, he told Americans that `Every one of us have to have a role to play on this team.' But the best anti- drug legislation and the best law enforcement won't work unless the judiciary is willing to enforce the laws. In a New York Times editorial, the end of January; ``Judge Baer's Tortured Reasoning'' is the title. It goes on to say that: What this judge managed to do through his sloppy reasoning was to undermine respect for the legal system, encourage citizens to flee the police and deter honest cops in drug- infested neighborhoods from doing their jobs. It goes on to say that: Consider the scene described by the officer. As he and his partner sat in their unmarked car, they saw four men approach the defendant's car. With team-like precision and without speaking to the driver, they opened the trunk, dumped two duffel bags in back, and then shut the door, running away when they spotted the officers. Surely these facts, taken together, present precisely the sort of suspicious circumstance police are supposed to be looking out for. The police in this case saw these individuals put 80 pounds of drugs in the back of the car, 5:00 in the morning, that car. The driver admitted she was taking them to Michigan where the street value of these drugs was worth $84 million. Eighty pounds. And, lo and behold, the judge let them off the hook because it was not unusual for folks to run away from the police in New York. Well, that is outrageous. An article in today's Washington Post, page 3; the title says ``Accusations of Coddling Criminals Aimed at Two Judges in New York.'' The Speaker in a news conference last week is quoted as saying this is the kind of pro-drug dealer, pro-crime and police and anti-law enforcement attitude that makes it so hard for us to win the war on drugs. Mr. Speaker, a number of us and my colleague from New York, Mr. Forbes, the chairman of the crime subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, and I circulated a letter among House colleagues this past week that asked the President to ask for Judge Baer's resignation, and I am proud to say that a majority of this House have now signed that letter, Republicans and Democrats alike. We are going to be sending that letter to the President on Tuesday next, and I would ask those of my colleagues that have not signed the letter to please find me between now and Tuesday so they can add their names to a majority of those in this House. My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is a signatory; my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], as well as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], are also signatories of that letter, so that we can let the President know that this man should not serve as a Federal judge for letting these folks on, and we merely ask the President to ask Judge Baer to step down based on the decision that he made. The articles referred to are as follows: [From the Wall St. Journal, Jan. 26, 1996] The Drug Judge Winning the war on drugs won't be easy if the battles end up in courtrooms like that of Harold Baer Jr. of the Federal District Court in Manhattan. Judge Baer ruled Wednesday that 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin that police found in a car in the drug-wracked neighborhood of Washington Heights could not be used as evidence. The drugs, which have a street value of $4 million, are ``tainted evidence,'' he said. He ruled that the police had no good reason for searching the car, despite the fact that the four men putting duffel bags into the trunk took off running when they saw the cops. This, the judge ruled, was not suspicious behavior. Reason: the ``residents of this neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive and violent.'' As a matter of fact: ``Had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual.'' The woman who was driving the car gave the police a videotaped confession. Carol Bayless, a 41-year-old Detroit woman, told police that she expected to be paid $20,000 for driving the drugs back home, and said that she had made a total of about 20 trips to New York to buy drugs. Judge Baer threw out the videotaped confession. Unless the ruling is overturned by the appeals court, the prosecutors say they no longer have a case; Ms. Bayless, who faced 10 years to life in jail, will be free to go. The year's young, but we doubt Judge Baer will have any competition for this year's Judge Sarokin Award, named in honor of the federal judge in New Jersey who ruled for a homeless man who used to lurk inside the Morristown library, spreading his ``ambrosia.'' Liberalism manages to deliver us these rulings on a regular basis, so it's appropriate to raise a few concerns. The first has to do with community standards. Aren't the mostly minority residents of Amsterdam Avenue and 176th Street, where the incident took place, entitled to the same level of protection as the mostly white residents 100 blocks south on Amsterdam in the heart of New York's Yuppiedom? We suspect the law-abiding residents of Washington Heights might take a different view about whether the bigger threat to their well-being is the police or fleeing drug runners. The other issue raised by the Baer ruling is the politics of judicial appointments. Judge Baer is a Clinton appointee, named to the federal bench in 1994 on the advice of the Democratic Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan. Now, certainly it is the case that Democrats have appointed first- rate jurists to the federal bench. But it's also the case that it is at the liberal end of the modern judiciary that communities find their interests trampled by overly expansive and even absurd legal claims for defendants. If Mr. Clinton is re-elected, by the end of his second term he will have filled roughly half of the slots in the federal judiciary, including majorities on the federal appeals courts. And that he would get one, two or even three more appointments to the Supreme Court. Mr. Clinton no doubt would separate himself from decisions like Judge Baer's, but one then has to somehow believe that he would actually separate himself from the constituencies insisting that he pick from the same candidate pool that produces such judges. As for the war on drugs, we commend Judge Baer's ruling to the attention of drug czar-designate, General Barry McCaffrey. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Mr. Clinton told Americans that ``every one of us have a role to play on this team.'' But the best anti-drug legislation and the best law enforcement won't work unless the judiciary is willing to enforce the laws.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 1020, the Integrated Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Act of 1995, a bill that will make the Federal Government live up to its promise of building and operating a high-level nuclear waste repository by January 31, 1998. While nearly 200 of my colleagues have cosponsored H.R. 1020, there are several that were unable to do so after the bill was put on the House calendar. I would like to acknowledge the following Members as supporters of doing what is right, making the Government live up to its promises: Charles Bass, Helen Chenoweth, Barbara Cubin, Jay Dickey, Van Hilleary, Marge Roukema, Mac Thornberry.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor a man who has dedicated his career to the betterment of banking and has continually voiced the banking industry's message loud and clear to the Members of this Congress. At the beginning of May, Daniel R. Smith, chairman and CEO of First of America Bank Corp., will be retiring after four decades of service in the banking industry. Throughout his career, Dan has made many contributions to the furtherance of constructive banking legislation. While he was president of the Michigan Bankers Association, legislation was passed that allowed statewide branching in Michigan. During his tenure as president of the American Bankers Association in 1994, interstate banking legislation, regulatory reform and bankruptcy legislation was passed. Dan also conceived an important market share study of the financial services business, which the ABA completed, that clearly demonstrates the continued strength of banks in their respective markets. He also previously chaired both the MBA's and the ABA's government relations councils and is currently a member of the Bankers Roundtable. Dan spent the first 21 years of his banking career in the trust department for First National Bank and Trust Company of Michigan, which later become First of America Bank--Michigan. In 1974, he was elected to the bank's board of directors and became president of the Kalamazoo Bank in 1977. He was named president of First of America Bank Corp. in 1983 and CEO of the corporation in 1985. During his tenure as CEO, the company grew from $5 billion in assets and 255 branch offices in Michigan, to the 33d largest holding company in the country with $23 billion in assets and over 600 branch offices in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida. I would like to thank Dan for his strong leadership in the banking industry and his continued determination to reach beyond the traditional boundaries of banking.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker: I would like to express my support for S. 652, the Telecommunications Act conference report, as I believe it is an important step forward in the development of our telecommunications policy. The issues we are discussing today--involving local and long distance phones service, cable TV, cellular phones, and more--will truly touch the lives of all Americans. As a member of the Commerce Committee which drafted and approved this bill last year, I'm pleased that we are finally on the verge of seeing this legislation enacted. The national telecommunications network will play a very central role as we prepare to enter the 21st century. Throughout Michigan and the entire Nation, we must prepare ourselves to take advantage of the latest technology and do our best to see that there are no potholes on the information superhighway. There are many important issues in the bill before us today. Let me just take a moment to take note of an issue of particular concern to the people of southwest Michigan--local marketing agreements, also known as LMA's. A very successful LMA is in existence between two stations in western Michigan, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids and WOTV in Battle Creek. In 1991, WOTV has suffered millions of dollars of losses and was forced to terminate their news operation and layoff many employees while they searched for a buyer. In late 1991, WOTV was able to enter into an LMA and bring the station back to financial stability. They now have a fully staffed news department dedicated to bringing local news to their viewers. Additionally, they are very active in community affairs such as events at Western Michigan University and the Kalamazoo Air Show. I am fully in support of efforts to allow for the continuation of LMA's in the future and I'm pleased that these provisions are part of S. 652. I believe that under this bill, we are preparing our nation for the wave of the future and leading the world into the 21st century.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut, my good friend, for yielding during this special order. I must say a couple of things to begin with. One of the things I have said a lot as I have gone around my district and around the State of Michigan and here in Washington too is in this Chamber, sometimes it seems as though we have too many Republicans and too many Democrats, and not enough U.S. Congressmen and women willing to make some tough choices. We have got to do that. I am 42 years old. You and I are about the same age.

Mr. UPTON. I would just like to make this point, Mr. Speaker. As I look at my State of Michigan, a few years ago we had a debt of about almost $2 billion, which is a lot for any State. Our Governor and our legislature went after spending, tightened everybody's belts. Today they have cut taxes 23 times in the last 3 years. We can do the same here, but we have to focus on the spending side. We have to do something about deficits that average somewhere between $150 billion and $250 billion over the last couple years, and we have to do it together. That means this side of the aisle and this side of the aisle working together to get the job done, and really get the budget balanced.