Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I just want to remind my colleagues that we are dealing with a President who has a very short memory. Just 2 days ago, he proclaimed October 1 as Child Health Day 2007. Today, he just trashed that. I don't know what he thought he was doing when he talked about improving the lives of children and preventing and reducing the cost of disease and promoting community health, because he is just following a position that denies 1 million kids the right to health care. So I hope, Mr. President, that you certainly don't proclaim a Protect Congress Day, or we are all in deep trouble. This veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program compromise legislation is finally showing the American people the President's true priorities. He is a war President. All he cares about is war and more war. The previous speaker on our side talked about $190 billion for the war in Iraq, and these funds aren't paid for. They add to the deficit. In addition to our children having to look around for health care, they are going to have to look around to pay for that illegal war. Simultaneously voting to extend a State Children's Health Insurance Program would be a good program. We would extend health care to nearly 4 million children, and the President is cutting a million off that cost a fraction of his illegal war. It is fully paid for and doesn't increase the deficit one penny. It passed both the House and the Senate with strong bipartisan majorities. What's wrong with our Republican minority? Why do they insist on denying 1 million children, kicking them off the rolls of SCHIP? Why do they scorn in the face of 43 of the Nation's Governors who have written to the President and argued against his vetoing this bill? President Bush says he has his own plan. I don't know if he had that when he declared October 1 as Child Health Day. Whatever that plan is, it would cause millions of children to lose their health care. My own Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, estimates that the President's plan would cause 1 million children to be denied health care in California by the year 2012. This is a matter of life and death for our children's insurance. Children with health care do better in school, in life, and have their illnesses caught before it is too late. Ladies and gentlemen, the axis of evil is not just in the Middle East. It is right down here on Pennsylvania Avenue. I urge my colleagues to reject the President's veto, have a compromise bill to assure the health of America's children and make sure that that is put ahead of some obscure, extreme, radical ideology. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for the remaining time to close for our side.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, are we closing?

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I intend to recognize in a moment Ms. Shea-Porter from New Hampshire, but pending that, a couple of comments. Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that the 45 Republicans who voted for our bill, if they are being disregarded by Republican leadership, we have a lot of room over here and would welcome them on our side. I also suggest to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, while his 2-year-old may not be ready for it yet, as somebody who is raising two children who are now 6, the reason we are waiting is for what we call in our household a ``time- out.'' You go to your room and think about the mistake you made, and when you're ready to apologize and come back and set things straight, you can come out of your room. That is what the 2-week period is all about.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I always thought that 800 percent of poverty was a Republican, but I am happy to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) for 1 minute.

Mr. STARK. He will. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a resolution that does nothing to end the war in Iraq. Does H.R. 3087 call for our troops to immediately be brought home? No, it does not. Does it at least call for redeployment over several months, or even years? No, it does not. Or at the very minimum, does it demand that the Pentagon actually develop and outline to a Congress a strategy on how redeployment might occur? No, it does not. As introduced, the bill would have done so. But in committee, this weak bill became even weaker. There's no there there, if there ever was. All the bill does is require the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the status of planning for redeployment. Let's not kid ourselves about what the result of today's resolution will be. Every 3 months, President Bush's Secretary of Defense would tell Congress that the administration has not and will not develop a plan for the withdrawal of all our brave men and women in uniform. That much I already know. I don't need a Bush lackey to repeat the bad news on a quarterly basis. The only plan President Bush has is to keep our troops in harm's way for years if not decades. He wants to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars abroad while domestic needs go unmet at home. I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3087 and instead support an immediate end to the war in Iraq.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and I are offering this jointly. Very quickly, it makes it mandatory for FEMA to send a first-class mail notification to affected property owners under the flood insurance sections. The notification that they send must include an explanation of the appeal process and contact information for responsible officials with whom they should deal. It's needed because ordinary citizens don't read the Federal Register, and often the announcements are printed in the legal page of newspapers. The first that my constituents have heard about this is from the mortgage lender who tells them they have got 45 days to buy insurance, and they are then precluded from an appeals process, which if they find out at least 90 days beforehand, they have a right to utilize a community appeals process which is far less cumbersome and expensive. I can only suggest in support of the amendment that my good friend Chairman Frank at one point stated when Burton and Stark get together, you may not like the amendment, but you should save one of the puppies. It is a bill that I think will help make this process simpler for all of our constituents, and I urge the adoption.

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

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Ways and Means Committee has an interest in several of the issues in this bill, and we support the bill. The protection of low-income seniors in Medicare deals with people between $12,252 and $13,782 in income. And when their part B premium is $1,122, they need that protection, and extends that through December 31. The Abstinence Education program is one that is very important to the Democrats. We've extended it on the theory that if we really enforce this abstinence education, there will be fewer Republicans. So, we support that big time. The Hospital Perspective Payment System regulation is one of the most important to our hospital community, and we have changed the way we will collect the funds from the hospitals and not collect it all up front. We will collect part of it up front, and then wait until later in the 5-year cycle to see how they behave to collect the balance, which will create less of a financial burden on the hospitals across the country. I thank all the people who have worked to make this more acceptable for the hospitals. The 2008 final regulation that governs inpatient hospital payments under Medicare makes important, long-overdue refinements to the system by differentiating payments based on the severity of illness. In doing so, practice shows that hospital payments are likely to increase hospitals will get smarter about how the document and code their patient cases. There is nothing inappropriate about this behavior, but in order to remain budget neutral, the regulation includes a ``behavioral offset''. The offset was designed to counterbalance the increased spending expected from using the severity- adjusted payments. I want to be clear that the Committee supports both efforts in the regulation--moving to severity-adjusted groupings and the so-called ``behavioral offset.'' However, the regulation includes a prospective adjustment. Questions have been raised about the size of the adjustment and whether it should be prospective or retrospective. Those are fair questions, and it seems that a retrospective adjustment would make a lot of sense. However, we are advised it may take CMS up to two years to gather the necessary data. Given historical payment and coding patterns, we feel it is appropriate to have an interim policy--rather than simply voiding this part of the regulation. As such, this legislation requires a reduction of 0.6 percent in 2008 and 0.9 percent in 2009. Even with that ``down payment'' from the hospitals, we are concerned that the data in 2010 could indicate a need for a substantial reduction to fully recoup the extra spending that occurs in the next two years. I want to be clear that we have talked with hospitals about this possibility and raised with them the difficulty of addressing that when the time comes. This exercise may simply be forestalling the inevitable, not erasing an unwanted reduction. We are limiting the amount of the offset now, in order to spread out the payments over time. When that time comes, I do not want to hear complaints about the eventual amount of this adjustment when it comes on-line down the road.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Congressman Klein in support of a resolution honoring former Congressman Charles Vanik. Charlie was a dedicated public servant and a great man. From 1955 to 1981, he served the people of northern Ohio with distinction and is an exemplary example for those of us in public office of what it means to be a true representative of the people. It is hard to say whether Charlie was best known for his signature black suits and bowties or his sponsorship of the now famous Jackson- Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Reform Bill. The former made him instantly recognizable throughout northern Ohio and in the corridors of Capitol Hill. The latter, which tied the former Soviet Union's trade status to whether it freely allowed Jewish emigration, allowed thousands of families to escape religious persecution. I personally will always remember Charlie for his strong work ethic and his tireless defense of the American working and middle class. Charlie spent his 26 years in Congress pursuing policies that gave the American people opportunities to achieve their dreams and rejecting those that allowed corporations to dodge taxes and shirk their responsibilities to their employees. He was so adamant about representing the people instead of interest groups that, after winning reelection in 1970, he vowed to never accept campaign contributions again. Charlie was beholden to no one for his congressional seat except the people of northern Ohio, and it showed in his politics. He returned to Washington time and time again not because of his ability to fundraise, but because of his ability to pass meaningful legislation. Some of his greatest victories included: the section 13 summer school lunch program, the predecessor amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Great Lakes pollution clean-up, a Cuyahoga Valley National Park, the original CAFE legislation, tax reform measures and Social Security and Medicare improvements. When Charlie passed away late last month, the United States lost one of its greatest leaders. However, Charlie's legacy can be seen in the 110th Congress as we continue to protect our delicate environment for future generations, guarantee all of our Nation's children receive the care they need, and ensure that all people receive adequate healthcare and can retire with security. As one of his former staffers--and later one of mine--Bill Vaughan, recently wrote, ``Like his black suit and bowtie, Mr. Vanik was a classic.'' Charlie was a one-of-a kind leader and I hope today's generation of members can learn from his steadfast pursuit of policies that helped everybody in our Nation achieve the American Dream.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as my distinguished chairman has suggested, this is a modest proposal, with all due respect to Mr. Swift. I am not proud of the bill or the process. I would say to my distinguished ranking member from the Ways and Means Committee that they were accorded every opportunity at every point to participate in this bill, and they know it. They were not excluded until they decided they did not want to help us pass the CHAMP bill, which was a far better bill. At this point, I have to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have helped us pass a bill that would have added a million additional children. It was a far better bill for children. It would have expanded coverage to legal immigrant children. It was better also for senior citizens. But I also have to thank our leadership and the commitment of Speaker Pelosi to suggest that when we come back, after, as we expect this bill will be vetoed, we will remember that there were a tremendous number of proposals in here which would have helped not only children, but seniors, financial help for low-income seniors, mental health parity for Medicare, improved Medicare benefits and health benefits, preventive care, rural health parity, consumer protections in part D, improved dialysis procedures, protection of Medicare from privatization, and the preservation of the Medicare system by doing away with the excessive spending in Medicare Advantage. The allegiance of groups like AARP, the AMA, Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Medicare and Social Security, the AHA, all of whom helped us pass CHAMP, all have been ignored in the bill before us today. I want to make it perfectly clear, I had no part in backing away from not only my commitments, the commitments of many of my colleagues, to these groups or to America's seniors. I know the Speaker will help us return to that commitment and pass those procedures in the future. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. As many of my colleagues have made clear, this bill is far better than what President Bush prefers. It will provide $35 billion in new funds for the CHIP program, which will enable 6.6 million children to keep their health care at the end of the month and provide coverage to nearly 4 million currently uninsured children. President Bush proclaims to want a ``clean extension'' of the CHIP program, but don't believe him on this any more than you did on weapons of mass destruction, ``mission accomplished'' or take your pick of lies he's told. He knows full well that his proposal would mean taking health care away from needy children. The CHIP program is a block grant so it provides a capped amount of funding to States each year. The existing program is broken. We've already had to pass legislation this year to provide additional funds to keep more than 13 States from dropping children from their CHIP roles. If the President has his way, those States will soon have to take away their health coverage anyway. That's why I'll vote for this bill today. It is better than the status quo--and far better than the direction President Bush wants to take us all with regard to health coverage. But, I am not proud of this bill or this process. On August 1st, we passed a far better bill through the House of Representatives. First, the Children's Health Insurance and Medicare Protection Act, CHAMP, was better for children. It invested $50 billion into the program and covered more than a million children. CHAMP also allowed States to use Federal funds to appropriately expand coverage to legal immigrant children and corrected a misguided regulation issued by the Bush administration on citizenship documentation that forced thousands of American children to lose their health coverage through Medicaid. However, not only was the CHAMP Act better for children, it also provided overdue and much needed improvements to senior citizens and people with disabilities on Medicare. In the House, we combined children with seniors and created a bill that improved the health of our youngest and most needy and our oldest. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans refused to allow our bills to go to conference. They refused to even consider attaching any Medicare provisions to the CHIP reauthorization. As a result, we are here today with a reduced CHIP package that cedes most of the House CHIP reauthorization bill to the Senate's preferred language. I'm also not certain about whether we will really take up Medicare later this year and adopt the important Medicare improvements we passed in the House. All of the following provisions from the CHAMP Act are now at risk: financial help for low-income seniors, Medicare mental health parity, improved Medicare preventive health benefits, prevention of the pending physician payment cuts, rural health parity, consumer protections in Part D, improved dialysis procedures, protection of Medicare from privatization through massive overpayments to private plans, and preservation of the Medicare system. In my opinion, the allegiance of groups like AARP, the AMA, Families USA, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Medicare, and Social Security and the AHA--which helped us pass CHAMP--have been ignored in the bill before us today. I want to close by making it perfectly clear that I had no part in backing away from my commitments to any Members of Congress, these groups, or to America's seniors in requesting your support for our broader CHAMP Act. I will do everything I can to see all sections of CHAMP become law. I urge my colleagues in the House and advocates across the country to urge leaders in both the House and the Senate to do the same.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Al Lewis on his retirement from the City of Newark, California, after serving over 29 years as a police officer and sergeant and 31 years as a member of the Newark Police Department. Sergeant Lewis began his career with the Newark Police Department as a reserve police officer in January 1976 and served in this capacity until his promotion to the rank of police officer in January 1978. He was selected as the department's first school resource officer in 1988 and was promoted to the rank of sergeant in February 1991. Sergeant Lewis was most recently assigned to the Patrol Division, but has also served as a range instructor and supervised the K9 unit. His passion has been the police K9 program, which he is responsible for bringing back to the department. He has also held numerous specialized assignments during his tenure including patrol officer, traffic officer, property detective, field training officer, weaponless defense instructor, police reserve officer program coordinator, substitute DARE instructor, member of the accident review board, SWAT member, SWAT leader, SWAT sniper, SWAT sergeant, liaison to the Newark communications volunteers, member of C.O.P.P.S. design team, and acting lieutenant for the detective division. Sergeant Lewis has been a key member of the Citizen Police Academy teaching staff, covering many of the courses taught during the annual 10-week class. He has earned the Reserve Police Officer of the Year award in 1976 and the Police Officer of the Year award in 1982. In addition, he has also received numerous other department awards throughout his career. I join the Newark Police Department in thanking Sergeant Al Lewis for his years of service and commitment to the City of Newark and the community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Officer John Boga on his retirement from the City of Newark, California, after serving over 20 years as a police officer and sergeant and over 25 years as a member of the Newark Police Department. Officer Boga began his career with the Newark Police Department as a reserve police officer in April 1982 and served in this capacity until his promotion to the rank of police officer on June 1, 1987. Officer Boga was most recently assigned to his third term as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Officer. As a D.A.R.E. Officer, Boga has taught a structured D.A.R.E. curriculum to the students in various grades of the eight public elementary schools and one private elementary school in Newark. In 2001, he also became a Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) instructor, which he also taught at the elementary school level. In addition to his D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. duties, Officer Boga has also served as an executive board member of the California D.A.R.E. Officers Association, a member of the hostage negotiation and trauma support teams, a member of the California Association of Hostage Negotiators, field training officer, and citizen police academy instructor. He had also held numerous assignments during his tenure including patrol officer, school resource officer, tri-city gang task force officer, Alameda County gang task force officer, reserve coordinator, and first aid/CPR instructor. Officer Boga has been recognized with many awards, the most recent being the police department's Distinguished Service Medal for his devotion to the department, the community, and the youth in Newark. He was also chosen to become the department's Police Officer of the Year in 1992. Officer Boga was selected as the 2006 California D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year by the members of the California D.A.R.E. Officers Association for his hard work and dedication to the D.A.R.E. program. He was also named the City of Newark Employee of the Year for 2005 for his commitment to the city and for all of his hard work and positive attitude. I join the Newark Police Department in thanking Officer John Boga for his years of commendable service and devotion to the City of Newark and the community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Alta Mira Club on its 100th anniversary. The Alta Mira Club is a philanthropic project established on December 9, 1907, to benefit women and children. The club is located in the City of San Leandro, CA, and has been creating a positive impact in that community over the past century. The Alta Mira Club's 60 charter members became a part of the California Federation of Women's Clubs on January 13, 1908, with the adoption of a constitution, bylaws, and elected officers. The Club later joined the General Federation of Women's Clubs, headquartered in Washington, DC, on February 9, 1912. The Alta Mira Club has a rich history. The members participated in the Suffragette movement and held classes for women on ``how to vote'', helped furnish and plant the grounds of the first San Leandro City library, and planted palm trees in the City, while also continuously engaging in other community, philanthropic, educational, scholarship, and social activities. The Club purchased the Ygnacio Peralta Home in 1926, receiving California Historical landmark bronze plaque number 285 in 1949. In 1978, the Ygnacio Peralta Home was placed on the national register in Washington, DC. The membership of the Alta Mira Club is the sole support of the clubhouse, where members continue the tradition of providing musical entertainment, poetry, and lectures as a part of its programs. I congratulate the Alta Mira Club on their 100th anniversary of excellent service to the community, their many accomplishments, and their continued support of civic projects and programs.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of National Grandparents Day on September 9. In particular, I want to recognize those grandparents that have taken on the extraordinary task of raising their grandchildren. There is no more valuable contribution that any individual can make to our country than raising children in a loving home. The fact that grandparents all over the country do this despite financial and other hardships is worthy of the highest praise. Nationwide, approximately 2.5 million children are being raised by their grandparents because their parents are unable to care for them. In Alameda County, the area of California that I represent, over 11,000 grandparents are responsible for meeting the basic needs of their grandchildren. Without their grandparents, many of these children would end up in foster care placements usually without contact with their siblings or the support of their extended family. Grandparents can provide the stable homes that allow children to grow and thrive. Unfortunately, many grandparents are not financially able to take on care of their grandchildren, despite their willingness to do so. The Federal Government has a responsibility to provide the resources willing grandparents need to care for their grandchildren. Our failure to do so will mean that more children enter the foster care system, are moved from place to place, and lose their family and community connections. In the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I am the proud grandfather of eight. President Carter created a National Grandparents Day in 1978. Nearly 30 years later grandparents still deserve our highest recognition, but they also deserve our support and assistance.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, as the dean of the California delegation, it's my privilege, my honor and distinct pleasure to introduce the newest member of our California delegation, Laura Richardson, elected to California's 37th Congressional District in a special election held just recently. Laura Richardson is a passionate critic of the war in Iraq, a supporter of universal health care, and a welcome addition to our delegation. After three terms on the Long Beach City Council and several years as director for Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Laura was elected to the California State Assembly last November. And less than a year later, she won a special election to succeed our dear departed colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and joins us here. It is a distinction that she is one of the few people in the history of this country to serve both in a local, State and Federal post within 1 year. She worked for Juanita as a field deputy, and she will continue her important work to ensure that all Americans can participate in a fair and free electoral process. Laura's career has many highlights. While on the city council, she was responsible for bringing Long Beach's inner city its first job training center for working families; she championed economic development and improved upon transportation services. And dear to my heart, she helped open the first new bank in the city's central area since the 1992 riots. In the assembly, she became the first African American woman to serve as the Assistant Speaker pro tempore. In the House, she will keep California's Democratic delegation a majority female; of our 34 members, 18 are women. She is a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and she joins us as an effective voice for working families in Congress. I look forward to working with her to improve health care for everyone and address the disparities in our health care system, issues I know are important to her and should be to all of us. At this time, I yield to my distinguished colleague and senior Member from the Republican delegation of California.