Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume I'd like to point out that the last time I watched television, they told me that we still have troops in Afghanistan who should be brought home. And we've not addressed the Medicare physician payment cuts, the payroll tax cut extension, unemployment insurance extension. Roads, bridges, and public transit systems are falling apart, and Congress hasn't brought forth legislation to invest in the infrastructure to repair those vital structures. And we continue to have an imbalanced Tax Code that lets Members of Congress get richer at the expense of working families, and we've done nothing to change that. Yet rather than tackle any serious problems, the Republicans are using the very little time that they permit Congress to be in session to debate repealing the law that the President has already made clear will not be implemented. In other words, we should repeal a law that isn't going to happen. Now, that's a vital use of our time. He's clearly stated, the President has, that the CLASS Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act, can't meet the tests put in the statute. Now, remember that Republicans probably would like to repeal all of ObamaCare, and I'm not sure exactly which part they want mostly to repeal. In other words, I assume that the 2.5 million youngsters who now get health insurance, the Republicans would like to kick them off the rolls and let them go to work or earn their own way to health insurance. It's lowered prescription drug costs, ObamaCare has, for millions of seniors, for a bill that the Republicans wrote that was too costly. I presume the Republicans would like to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for seniors. Republicans generally like to do anything that the pharmaceutical obviously asks them to do, and I'm surprised they haven't brought that up yet. I understand that my good friend, Dr. Boustany, actually has the makings of a bill that would help long-term care. And I also understand that the only reason he hasn't introduced it--I'd be glad to make it an amendment if it's ready to go right now--is that the health insurance industry doesn't like it. Well, if the health insurance industry doesn't like it, it must be spectacular, and I hope we'll see it. Maybe you'll tell us a little bit about it, and I'd like to applaud it because he has done some great work in this area, and we need to do this. The fully implemented ObamaCare, health care, whatever you want to call it, by 2014 will extend affordable, quality medical care to 32 million uninsured Americans. That's a plan. Maybe we could change it. Maybe we could make it quicker. Maybe we would extend it to more people. Maybe we could save some money. But that has to come from the other the other side of the aisle. We oppose this, and I'd like to think that our Republican friends would work with us to improve it and move us in that direction. I'd like to highlight a letter of opposition to repealing the CLASS Act that is signed by more than 70 organizations representing millions of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and people suffering from various diseases. These groups include: AARP, the Autism National Committee, the AFL-CIO, and Easter Seals, and United Cerebral Palsy. They urge Congress to ``reject H.R. 1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward.'' I ask that this letter be inserted into the Congressional Record as part of this debate. January 31, 2012. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The undersigned organizations write to oppose legislation, H.R. 1173, to repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program and respectfully urge members to reject such legislation. In 2008, 21 million people had a condition that caused them to need help with their health and personal care. Medicare does not cover long-term services and supports (LTSS), yet about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some type of LTSS at some point during their lifetime. As our population ages, the need for these services will only grow. In addition, about 40 percent of the individuals who need LTSS are under age 65 and LTSS can enable individuals to work and be productive citizens. Regardless of when individuals may need these services, there is a lack of financing options to help them plan and pay for the services they need to help them live independently in their homes and communities where they want to be. Family caregivers are on the frontlines. They provided care valued at $450 billion in 2009--more than the total spending on Medicaid that year. Private long-term care insurance helps some people pay for the cost of services, but it is not affordable for most, and some people are not even able to qualify for it. Too often, the cost of services wipes out personal and retirement savings and assets that are often already insufficient--as a result, formerly middle class individuals are forced to rely on Medicaid to pay for the costs of LTSS. There are few options for individuals to help them pay for the services they need that could help them delay or prevent their need to rely on Medicaid, the largest payer of LTSS. That's why we support the CLASS program--to give millions of working Americans a new option to take personal responsibility and help plan and pay for these essential services. CLASS could also take some financial pressure off Medicaid at the state and federal levels--paid for by voluntary premiums, not taxpayer funds. For us, this is about the financially devastating impact that the need for LTSS has on families across this country every day and the essential, compelling and urgent need to address this issue. Every American family faces the reality that an accident or illness requiring long-term care could devastate them financially. This issue affects the constituents of every U.S. Representative. CLASS is an effort to be part of the solution. The CLASS actuarial report established that CLASS can still be designed to be a ``value proposition,'' although development work was still needed. The actuarial report also noted that federal actuaries ``. . . agreed that certain plans, designed to mitigate the adverse selection risk . . . can be actuarially sound and attractive to the consumers.'' Rather than repeal CLASS, we urge continued dialogue and development of a viable path forward. The need to address LTSS and how these services will be paid for in a way that is affordable to individuals and society as a whole will not go away. Families will continue to need a workable LTSS option to protect themselves; and a path forward is essential because the need for these services will only continue to grow. We appreciate your consideration of our views that are based on the experiences of millions of families across this country. We urge you to reject H.R. 1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward. Sincerely, AAPD; AARP; ACCSES; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance for Retired Americans; Alzheimer's Foundation of America; American Association on Health and Disability; American Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American Geriatrics Society; American Music Therapy Association; American Network of Community Options and Resources; American Society on Aging; The Arc of the United States; Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs; Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Autism National Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA). California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; Cape Organization for Rights of the Disabled (CORD); Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities; Center for Independent Living of South Florida; Inc.; Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD); Coalition of Geriatric Nursing Organizations; Council for Exceptional Children; The Council on Social Work Education; Direct Care Alliance; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Health & Disability Advocates; Inter-National Association of Business; Industry and Rehabilitation; LeadingAge; Lutheran Services in America; Mental Health America; The National Alliance for Caregiving; National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a). National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD); National Association of the Deaf; National Association for Geriatric Education (NAGE); National Association for Home Care & Hospice; National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP); National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers; National Association of Social Workers; National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDE); National Association of State Head Injury Administrators; National Center on Caregiving; Family Caregiver Alliance; The National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long- Term Care (formerly NCCNHR); National Council on Aging; National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council on Independent Living; National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress. National Multiple Sclerosis Society; The National Rehabilitation Association; National Respite Coalition NISH; Paralyzed Veterans of America; PHI-Quality Care through Quality Jobs; Physician-Parent Caregivers SEIU; Self- Reliance; Inc.; Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE); Social Work Leadership Institute/The New York Academy of Medicine; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal Association; Volunteers of America.

Mr. STARK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Isn't it true that in most of the liquor stores and other establishments of that type they charge no fees for cashing the checks because they want people to get the cash to gamble? In many of our districts in California they don't have to go to these payday loan places and pay exorbitant fees to get a check cashed and so that it really, in many ways, it is helpful in our communities.

Mr. STARK. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Narrowing Exceptions for Withholding Taxes Act. This legislation will close a loophole in existing tax law that allows certain self-employed individuals to avoid paying their fair share of Medicare payroll taxes. Medicare is financed in part by a payroll tax paid by employers and employees. The total tax is 2.9 percent split between workers and employers. Self-employed individuals pay the full 2.9 percent themselves. Under current law, the S corporation structure allows certain self- employed individuals a way to avoid paying full Medicare taxes. Income received as compensation for services to that S corporation will be subject to the Medicare payroll tax, but any income classified as a distribution of profits will be exempt. This loophole in our tax law encourages income manipulation. These individuals pay themselves a nominal income for their services to the S corporation and classify most of their income as profits and dividends, to avoid paying the 2.9 percent payroll tax. The House Democrats first tried to close this loophole in December 2009 with H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill passed the House, but did not pass the Senate. At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation scored this provision as raising $11.2 billion in revenue over ten years. The IRS does not have the resources to audit all 4 million S corporations to ensure that there is no underreporting of income. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the GAO have all highlighted the systematic underreporting of income. The GAO estimated that pass-through organizations underpaid $15 billion in 2001, with a median payroll tax underpayment of $20,127. Teachers, firefighters, and nurses can't structure their income to avoid payroll taxes. This is a strategy for lawyers, lobbyists, and investment managers. This legislation would close this loophole by targeting the individuals most likely to take advantage of this loophole. These are professional service businesses built on the reputation and skill of three or fewer employees in the field of health, law, lobbying, engineering, architecture, accounting, investment advice or management, or brokerage services. Under this provision, all of the profits someone gets from an S-corporation they own would be subject to the payroll tax. These shareholders will no longer be able to underreport wage income to exclude the rest of their earnings from the payroll tax. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took advantage of this loophole. When he filed his 2010 taxes, he reported earnings from his two S Corporations of just $444,327 in income but $2.4 million in profits and dividends. This nearly $3 million was just earnings in the same year from the same two organizations. However, by choosing to report only $444,327 as wage income, the Wall Street Journal estimated that Mr. Gingrich saved himself $69,000 in Medicare payroll taxes. His $2.4 million in profits and dividends was exempt from the 2.9 percent payroll taxes due to a flaw in our tax laws. This legislation would put our workers on an even playing field. Self-employed individuals would no longer have the option to avoid the taxes with the creative use of a pass-through entity. Just like those individuals who work in an ordinary partnership or sole-proprietorship, or work for a larger institution, every taxpayer would pay his or her fair share toward the Medicare trust fund.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor David W. Smith who is retiring after serving 33 years as the Mayor of the city of Newark, California. Mayor Smith began his career in 1967 after graduating from Michigan Technological University with a degree in Business Administration and Industrial Management. He began his career as a Plant Manager at Ethyl Corp. After working at the plant for ten years he developed an interest in public service. In 1976, he was elected to the Newark City Council. Just two years later, in 1978, he was elected Mayor of the city of Newark. Mayor Smith is currently serving his 16th consecutive term as mayor, the most senior mayor currently serving in California. Additionally, he is also 2nd in mayoral seniority in the United States. During his service as Mayor, Smith was the Vice President of the Retail Division of Oatey Supply Chain Services from 1979 to 2006. More recently, he has served as the Executive Director of Ohlone College Foundation since 2006. Mayor Smith's accomplishments during his tenure as Mayor are exemplary. He has displayed the highest level of public service to his citizens, and his commitment can be seen through the wide array of organizations and committees in which he was involved. He was a Trustee and Committee Chair of the United States Conference of Mayors, and was highly involved in the Arts Committee as well as the Education Committee. He was previously chair of the Alameda County Transportation Authority and the Tri-City Waste Management Authority, and was also President of the Alameda County Conference of Mayors. He is the currently the Chair of the Newark Redevelopment Agency, the Newark Disaster Council, and the Newark Community Development Advisory Committee. Mayor Smith has received a myriad of awards for his outstanding accomplishments. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumni of Calumet High School, and an Outstanding Young Alumni of Michigan Technological University. He was selected as one of California's Five Outstanding Young Men, and was named a Life Member of the United States Junior Chamber, a leadership and civic organization. I join many others in saluting Mayor Smith for his commitment to excellence, thanking him for his exemplary service, and wishing him well on his retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and thank Vince Panvini for his decades of service on behalf of sheet metal workers locally, nationally and internationally. Panvini's retirement from his position as Director of Governmental Affairs for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association is a great loss to the community of sheet metal workers and to the labor community as a whole. Throughout his career, Panvini has proven himself as a first-rate organizer and representative of his union members. For close to 50 years, this second-generation sheet metal worker has been a member of Local Union 19 in Philadelphia. He won election as a Local 19 trustee and later to their Executive Board. He rose to an appointment as Local Union Organizer, then was appointed--and later elected--as Business Representative for the Local. After attending training at Harvard Trade School for International Labor Relations, he was appointed as Director of Governmental Affairs for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association in January 1994. His success, friends and coworkers have said, is characterized by the fact that Panvini was ``born to do this work.'' His love of the job combined with his unparalleled memory and ``funny but stern'' personality has won him leagues of friends and allies. These attributes also won him great respect among peers, politicians, organizers, community leaders and union workers. The labor community's loss at Panvini's retirement, however, will be his family's gain--a noble tradeoff. With a return to Philadelphia, he'll get quality time with family, his top priority. Panvini has a son, a daughter and four grandchildren. On top of that, Panvini will have more time to cheer on his Philadelphia Eagles. I thank Vince Panvini for his years of service and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of the Mayor of Fremont, California, Bob Wasserman. The residents of Fremont and communities throughout California and beyond mourn the loss of this dedicated public servant who passed away on December 29, 2011. Mayor Wasserman was born in Gary, Indiana, and moved to California and attended public schools in the Los Angeles area. He became a Police Officer in the City of Montebello, California, and was appointed to the position of Chief of Police in San Carlos, California in 1969 where he served for three years. He was appointed Chief of Police in Fremont in January 1976 and retired in 1992. In 1992, Mayor Wasserman was elected to the Fremont City Council and served until 2004. He was elected Mayor in 2004 and currently held that position. Mayor Wasserman's 40-year career in law enforcement included appointments in Southern California and a term as president of the California Peace Officers' Association. He has been recognized by the California State Senate for outstanding public service and was the recipient of the Law Enforcement Executive of the Year Award. His numerous affiliations include Past President of the California Peace Officer's Association, California Police Chief's Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training and Police Executive Research Forum. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Police Science and Administration from California State University, Los Angeles and received his Master's degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern California. Mayor Wasserman is survived by his wife of 53 years, Linda, and their two children, Dan and Jill. I join the community extending heartfelt sympathy to the family, colleagues and friends of Mayor Wasserman. He served with honor and distinction and his many positive contributions to make a difference in the lives of others have left an indelible mark and will never be forgotten.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Donna Shearn. Commander Shearn is retiring after serving 25 years as a member of the Newark, California Police Department. Commander Shearn began her career with the Newark Police Department as a police officer on August 16, 1986. While serving as an officer, she was assigned to patrol and the Special Enforcement Unit. Additionally, she was a member of the Hostage Negotiation Team. Commander Shearn was one of the first three original D.A.R.E. officers and also worked as a School Resource Officer. To show her commitment to the citizens of Newark, Commander Shearn was active in the creation of the Newark Police Department's Vision Statement. In July 1991, Commander Shearn was promoted to the rank of Sergeant, the first and only female to make Sergeant in the Department's history. She served as Administrative Sergeant, as well as Acting Detective Division Commander. In addition to her Patrol Sergeant responsibilities, she supervised a number of Department programs. These programs included, Field Training Officer, Acting Supervisor, Explorers, Hostage Negotiations, Trauma Response, Vehicle Abatement, Safety Patrol, and Patrol Scheduling and Staffing. On July 1, 2004, Commander Shearn was promoted to Police Lieutenant. She was the first female Police Lieutenant in the Department's history. During her time as Lieutenant, she served as the Administrative Lieutenant and the Patrol Operations Lieutenant. The Lieutenant position was reclassified to the rank of Police Commander on January 1, 2009. Commander Shearn is the first female Police Commander in the department's history. Commander Shearn was named Employee of the Quarter for Fall 2003. She received this award for organizing and coordinating a Board of Corrections jail inspection. The Newark Police Department passed this inspection with significant recognition. In 2009, she received the honor of the City of Newark Employee of the Year award from Mayor Dave Smith at the annual Employee Service Awards. She received this award for her dedicated efforts to advance the Police Department, despite the limited resources allocated to the Department. Commander Shearn was awarded the Chiefs Challenge Coin of Special Recognition for her outstanding work, loyalty to the organization, and tireless efforts in the development and promotion of the Mission, Vision, and Values of the Newark Police Department. This coin is issued only to members of the Police Department who consistently perform at exemplary levels or rise above with a single act of excellence. I join in saluting Commander Shearn for her commitment to excellence, thanking her for her exemplary service, and wishing her well on her retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Gregory Stewart. Chief Stewart is retiring from the Union City, California Police Department on December 30, 2011. Chief Stewart began his career with the Union City Police Department in November of 1975. After beginning his career as a Public Services Cadet he was then appointed to the position of Reserve Police Officer in 1977. Soon after, he was hired by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department as a Deputy. After his work at the Sheriff's Department he returned to the Union City Police Department and began his duties as a police officer on May 1, 1978. He quickly ascended the ranks of the Police Department. On December 16, 1986 he was promoted to Sergeant; to Lieutenant on October 1, 1996; to Captain on December 25, 2000. After years of exemplary service to the city and its citizens he was appointed as the Department's seventh Chief of Police on December 21, 2006. During his career, Gregory Stewart served with distinction in a number of assignments. These have included Patrol, Investigations, Field Training, Supervisor of Patrol, Traffic, Crime Prevention, Research and Analysis, team leader of the Specialized Emergency Response Team as well as Field Operations and Support Services Commander. Chief Stewart developed an affiliation with Union City's Youth and Family Services department, which led to a cooperative effort to apply the philosophy of the ``Boston Cease Fire'' program which aimed to reduce teen violence. He also implemented the ``Crime Free'' program, a citywide effort to improve the quality of life for Union City residents. Chief Stewart has continually displayed astuteness, veracity, diligence, and objectivity in executing his duties as Chief Police. Throughout his tenure, these traits have earned him the respect and admiration of his subordinates, peers, other Law Enforcement professionals, and the community of Union City. Thank you Gregory Stewart for 35 years of dedicated service in Law Enforcement and for 33 years as a sworn officer with the Union City Police Department. Your commitment and leadership have been exemplary and will leave a lasting legacy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act because it will continue to waste more money on weapons we do not need and wars that are not necessary. This legislation prioritizes military spending over our economic stability, the health of our people, and the basic civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The costs of this bill are simply too great. Families in my district and across the country are facing unemployment, foreclosures, and the loss of their retirement savings. All levels of government are making difficult decisions to decrease budget deficits. Now is the time to focus our efforts on bringing the defense budget under control. Instead, this bill continues our unsustainable spending on wars and the military. It is our job to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. When it comes to defense, we have failed miserably. We have doubled our military spending since 2001, and spend six times more than China--the next highest-spending country. Continuing to spend 60 percent of our discretionary budget on an already bloated and redundant defense sector is more than just negligence; it is malicious. Every dollar we spend on war and weapons is a dollar we cannot spend on education, health care, infrastructure, or even deficit reduction. This bill does nothing to seriously rein in our defense budget. To make matters worse, this defense authorization is costing American citizens more than just their tax dollars, but their civil liberties as well. Provisions within this legislation allow anyone--including Americans--to be detained indefinitely by the military if found to have ``substantially supported'' forces ``associated'' with a terrorist organization, or who ``are engaged in hostilities'' against the U.S. or ``coalition partners.'' As none of the quoted terms are defined, this vague language gives excessive and broad power to the military. Our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to detain American citizens without charge or trial, nor does it give the military the authority to act in place of our justice system. And yet this legislation would codify into law the authority of the military to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists--something never even seriously considered during the McCarthy-Cold War era. I could never support a measure that, in the name of security, violates Americans' constitutional rights. This authorization is not an accurate reflection of American values. Our first priority is not, nor should it be, spending more money on defense than every other Western country combined. Defense spending should not receive privileged budgetary treatment while the rest of our budget faces deep cuts, nor should it be used as a vehicle to suppress civil liberties. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wasteful and dangerous legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3630, which would be better entitled ``the House Republicans' ultimate year- end wish list.'' This Republican bill is an affront to senior citizens, middle class workers, and low-income families--at a time when Americans are enduring the toughest economy since the Great Depression. As this bill details, Republicans would have seniors permanently pay increased Medicare premiums for just one year of a payroll tax cut for working Americans and a one-year gutted extension of unemployment insurance. This bill is wrongheaded, it's heartless, and it's bad for our fragile economic recovery. Republicans want one in four Medicare beneficiaries to start paying significantly higher Medicare premiums. If their proposal were fully in effect today it would hit people with $40,000 in annual income--those aren't the rich. They ignore the reality that wealthier seniors already pay more for Medicare benefits today--and they've also paid more in Medicare taxes during their working years. Republicans should be honest about their goal here. This isn't to make the rich pay more, it is designed to undermine Medicare's guaranteed benefits for ALL of America's senior citizens and people with disabilities and get the government out of the business of guaranteeing health benefits. Republicans have also tucked in a special interest giveaway that costs $300 million. They would undo parts of the health reform law in order to give physician-owned hospitals more room to grow and to line their pockets. We already know these facilities have caused patient deaths and run up Medicare costs with unnecessary use of tests and procedures. This Republican handout is bad for Americans' health, but it's great for these special interest friends of the Republicans. The Medicare provisions and giveaways are enough to oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, this bill is also a vehicle to attack working families and environmental protections. This bill would eliminate 40 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for workers in my state of California and many other states. Not only do House Republicans want to pull the rug out from unemployed people searching for work, they also want them to submit to the indignity of having to take a drug test to qualify for benefits. Not only are you out of a job, you are also a presumed drug user in the eyes of Republicans. America may want to drug test House leaders for including terrible anti-environmental policy riders that are entirely un-related to either tax cuts, unemployment insurance, or Medicare. In order to sweeten the pot for the more radical members of the Speaker's caucus, this legislation would block the EPA from reducing mercury pollution. It would also usurp Presidential authority and approve the Keystone tar sands pipeline without proper review. We need to get down to the business of extending unemployment insurance, protecting seniors and preserving the middle class. This dangerous bill, once again, shows Republican's willingness to hang the middle class and senior citziens out to dry to further their special interest agenda.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a new Kaiser Permanente initiative to encourage breastfeeding as an important component of preventing childhood obesity and promoting other health benefits. Kaiser is implementing a systemwide program to ensure mothers are provided ample breastfeeding education and support. They will track their successes as a measure of hospital quality. Research suggests breastfeeding has multiple benefits for baby and mother alike. Breastfed babies have a lowered risk of childhood obesity as well as allergies, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. Nursing reduces a mother's risk of post-partum depression, Type 2 diabetes, ovarian and breast cancer. Family- and patient-centered prevention initiatives like this will play an enormous role in battling America's toughest health care challenges. Kaiser's new breastfeeding initiative is an example of how a commitment to prevention can positively impact health outcomes. Health care in America must shift from its singular focus on treating disease to incorporating a strong commitment to prevention. I encourage other major health care providers to follow Kaiser's example.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). It is unfortunate but not surprising that we are voting on this legislation today. We are just weeks away from millions of people being kicked off unemployment insurance and Medicare providers having their payments cut by 27% making it difficult for seniors to find a doctor or get access to care. Instead of dealing with those pressing issues we are voting on another ideological Republican message bill. More false promises from the Republican House Leadership that jobs will miraculously appear if we just eliminate rules that keep our food safe to eat, our air and water clean, and our cars safe to drive. The REINS Act is aimed at making government less efficient and less responsive to the issues facing our country. The legislation would make it nearly impossible for the government to pass regulations. Any rule developed by an agency through the extensive notice and comment process that we currently use would now be forced through both houses of Congress, where majorities would have to affirmatively vote within 70 days or the rule would disappear. Under the REINS Act, proposed rules would be subject to even more rounds of approval in a new system biased to ensure that these rules fail to be adopted. Did any one of the Republican cosponsors of this legislation ever take a class in government or civics when they were in high school? Passing a law requires approval of the House, Senate, and then the President. Congress then delegates the relevant rulemaking to the agencies because these agencies have the manpower, time and expertise to develop the appropriate rules. This legislation turns the relationship between the three branches of government, and our entire regulatory system, on its head. Our economy needs a level playing field that protects consumers and small business from corporate and other special interests. Science- based regulation helps to create a stable and fair marketplace for consumers and businesses alike. The REINS Act would further empower big business to challenge regulations that they disagree with regardless of the benefits to the public health and welfare. This is yet another Republican attack on the American middle class intended to please their corporate benefactors. I cannot support this legislation and I urge my fellow members to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill is just one more Republican attack on workers and middle class Americans under the guise of protecting the ``job creators'' we hear so much about from the other side of the aisle. In case you missed the recent Republican Presidential debate when front runner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said we should do away with child labor laws, the Republican message is clear: laws that protect workers are not needed. Instead, workers should just rely on the benevolence of ``job creators'' to pay them for the hours they worked or to hold a fair union election. Today's legislation is another attempt to undermine workers' rights. For eighty years, the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, has operated as an intermediary between workers and employers. I applaud the NLRB's decision to modernize union election rules with standardized election timelines and electronic petition filing, and a streamlined hearings process. House Republicans responded to these modest and overdue changes by bringing up legislation to interfere with workers' rights to organize. Every aspect of this legislation would make it more difficult for workers to form a union. It would allow companies to obstruct any attempt by workers to unionize and create infinite avenues for employers to delay elections, including litigation. These delays empower those employers who want to intimidate and harass workers and bring in union-busters. It would also allow employers to gerrymander bargaining units to skew election results in their favor. When I hold town meetings in my district, my constituents are not clamoring for Congress to make it harder to join a union. They want our economy fixed and they want jobs. Attacking working men and women, as this bill does, will not create a single job or help a single family pay their bills. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the Balanced Budget Amendment. This amendment is just another opportunity for the House Majority to pander to their right wing base instead of focusing on the issue that ordinary families care about--jobs. The families in my district are concerned about their next paycheck and how they will make that next mortgage or rent payment. Unemployment is unacceptably high, and in California it's even higher than the national average. There are five applicants for every available job. Unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of the year for 305,000 people in my state, and millions nationwide. Our highest priority should be creating jobs and helping those who need help staying afloat while they search for work. Instead of creating jobs the Congress is voting on this reckless amendment to the Constitution that would damage our shaky economy and end Social Security and Medicare as we know them. This balanced budget amendment would prevent the U.S. from responding to an economic crisis or making the investments we need to repair our infrastructure. H.J. Res. 2 is designed to guarantee that working families will bear the burden of deficit reduction through steep cuts to vital programs, instead of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. The balanced budget amendment is a distraction. The legislation has no chance of getting 2/3 support in the House and Senate or the support of 3/5 of the states, which is needed for ratification. We certainly won't be seeing a balanced budget amendment added to our Constitution anytime soon. This vote is typical for this Republican Congress. It is no surprise that our approval rating is 9%. Since Republicans took control of the House, the agenda has been dominated by symbolic votes to wipe out environmental protections, eliminate states' abilities to control guns, reaffirm our national motto which no one has threatened, limit access to abortion, weaken social insurance programs, and outsource American jobs. There are plenty of good ideas to get our economy back on track. We could extend unemployment insurance, create jobs by repairing our infrastructure, and reform our tax code so the wealthy and Wall Street are paying their fair share. This balanced budget amendment doesn't impact our economy at all. Instead, it is a distraction from that work. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, last year unemployment insurance kept over 3 million people, including 1 million kids, out of poverty. These benefits are due to expire, and without an extension, more than 300,000 Californians will lose this lifeline. Extending unemployment insurance is the smart thing to do. It creates jobs. People spend their benefits, they buy gasoline, groceries, put people to work in the communities, send their kids to school. People scraping by on unemployment aren't looking for a handout. These are people who have been working for a long time. They are employable. There just aren't jobs, and they're out there looking to find one. We should help them. They're not looking for a handout, they're looking for a hand up. Are we going to tell them we had money for wars and bank bailouts, tax cuts for millionaires, and not for workers? I don't think so. A constituent frustrated at the gridlock in Congress wrote, ``America, wake up before it's too late. Our political system doesn't work.'' Let's all work together and prove this constituent of mine wrong.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Alameda County Social Services Agency, Department of Children and Family Services. Due to their exemplary work to open more good homes to foster children by actively recruiting and working with LGBT families, they have earned the All Children-All Families Seal of Recognition from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, a leading organization in the advocacy of LGBT civil rights. Alameda is only the second county in the nation to receive this recognition. By eliminating the barriers that LGBT couples and individuals face when they chose to adopt or foster, Alameda County has helped to fulfill their mission of ensuring that every foster child finds a loving family. One example of how important Alameda County's work has been in this area is Lara and Emkay Bosque. Lara and Emkay have adopted two young children. Thanks to their efforts, two beautiful children are growing up in a permanent and loving family, instead of the foster care system. We need more families like the Bosques and I will be displaying their family photo in my office during November, which is National Adoption Month. At this time of celebration for Alameda County it is important to remember that they are a shining example of what counties and agencies across the nation can do to decrease the number of children in our foster care system by finding them permanent, stable homes. Currently our foster care system serves over 400,000 children, with over 105,000 waiting to be adopted. LGBT families can play an important role in decreasing the number of children in care. Unfortunately, LGBT individuals and couples face discrimination in 31 states when they attempt to adopt or foster. Congress invests over $7 billion in our child welfare system annually, yet we are allowing potential adoptive parents and foster families to be excluded to the detriment of children. We should show our support of those children who are without families by passing HR 1681, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. I introduced this bill to protect those families looking to foster or adopt children from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status or on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved. It is the purpose of our foster care system to find children families who will love and cherish them. There should be no added burden for anyone based solely on their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity. I would again like to acknowledge Alameda County for their commitment to children in search of families and to the families willing and able to adopt a child in need. I hope more counties will follow their inspiring lead.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that thousands of abused and neglected immigrant children in our foster care system have the opportunity to overcome their abuse and become successful adults. Every year, hundreds and perhaps thousands of abused and neglected children leave the child welfare system and become illegal immigrants through no fault of their own. Under a law passed by Congress in 1990 immigrant foster youth are able to gain legal status. This status, known as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), is available if a child is in the foster care system, under 21, and cannot be safely reunified with their family or returned to their country of origin. SIJS ensures that the child has a recognized legal status and a pathway to becoming a citizen. After a young person leaves foster care, they are not eligible for SIJS. Unfortunately, many youth and many caseworkers are unaware of SIJS or how to apply. As a consequence, potentially eligible youth ``age out'' of the foster care system every year without a legal status. After being cared for by our child welfare system because they were victims of abuse and neglect, these young people then leave the system and face the threat of deportation and lack access to the supports other transitioning foster youth rely upon. My office has heard from young people who aged out of the system and others who were adopted who never heard of SIJS. These youth were forced into the underground economy, face exploitation, and live in constant fear of being deported to a country they don't know. To fix this problem, the Foster Children Opportunity Act will require that all children in the foster care system be screened for SIJS eligibility and other forms of immigration relief. It also requires that they be assisted in applying for the status. Child welfare agencies and juvenile courts will be provided with technical assistance and additional resources to make this happen. In addition, my legislation will guarantee that youth who obtain SIJS have access to the same benefits, such as student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps that support other former foster youth as they make the transition to adulthood. My bill will not change current immigration law. Nor will it result in any adults who have engaged in illegal behavior from gaining legal status because a person with SIJS cannot act as a sponsor for any family members. The Foster Children Opportunity Act has nothing to do with the fight over immigration reform. It is simply about fulfilling our responsibility to all abused and neglected children and providing these youth with a fighting chance to succeed. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislation that will improve the lives of thousands of vulnerable children.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2576, legislation brought forth by House Republicans today. It is being considered in order to pay for the previous bill that eliminates a Republican-written provision in law requiring a 3 percent withholding tax on payments to government contractors. H.R. 2576 changes a provision of the new health reform law that defines income for purposes of qualifying for financial help obtaining health insurance. The effect of the bill is to reduce the number of Americans eligible for financial assistance with their health insurance costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if enacted, it will cause up to a half a million people to lose access to affordable health coverage. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will gleefully point to support by the Administration as a compelling reason to support this legislation. I respectfully disagree and believe the Administration is dead wrong on this one. First, the Administration decided on its own--without consultation with Congress who wrote the Affordable Care Act--that this definition of income was a ``glitch'' in the law. They are wrong. This definition excludes non-taxable Social Security income from the definition of income. As a result, it helps to assure that more people who obtain Social Security between ages 62 through 64 and people who qualify for Social Security because of severe disabilities have access to affordable health coverage. That wasn't a glitch. It was intentional. Making the change proposed in this bill saves money by kicking these very vulnerable people out of eligibility for financial help with their health insurance costs. It's also important to note that we intentionally picked up this exclusion from the definition of income because this exclusion is typically applied for purposes of qualifying for other tax credits and benefits. While I oppose this bill on its own merits, I also take issue with its pairing with the 3 percent withholding legislation. Yesterday, Ways and Means Ranking Member Levin went to the Rules Committee with an alternative way to finance the 3 percent withholding bill. His alternative would have offset the cost of this business tax cut by closing a tax loophole improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants. Yet, Republicans prohibited his amendment from being brought to the floor for our consideration today. Clearly, Republicans believe the needs of the highly profitable oil and gas industry outweigh the need for early retirees and people with disabilities to afford health insurance. With H.R. 2576, Republicans are forcing these vulnerable people to pay for yet another tax break for business. It's the wrong thing to do and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, Congressman Mike Honda, to recognize Clyde Mann and celebrate his efforts to establish a National Science Day in the United States. Mr. Mann is a science instructor at Warm Springs Elementary School in Fremont, California. Recently he organized, almost single-handedly, a Science Alliance Day at the school. During the Science Alliance Day a team of 40 Silicon Valley executives visited and made presentations to the 846 students at Warm Springs Elementary School. During this day-long, school-wide extravaganza students were able to get excited about science and learn about the ways that science shapes our future. Mr. Mann recognizes the growing need for a trained workforce that is knowledgeable about science and technology and his goal is to establish a National Science Day throughout the country. If this goal is accomplished Mr. Mann is sure that our country's students will develop a passion for science by participating in science activities during National Science Day celebrations at their schools. Recently he said, ``you're going to have a whole generation of kids across the country that are going to be very interested and engaged in science and to want to pursue science in the future. This is the Apollo moment acted upon.'' The start of Warm Spring's science day was spectacular. There were demonstrations featuring robots, dry ice, DNA models, Maglev demonstrations, Mars rover facsimiles, and exploding balloons, and geysers of Coke powered by Mentos, not to mention the scientists and technology executives attending the event. To make sure that the students were not distracted by hunger there were even science themed snacks. According to an excited fourth-grader, ``we made edible DNA with toothpaste and marshmallows and twisters''. This sort of excitement is exactly what Clyde Mann envisions in his efforts to create a National Science Day. Congressman Honda and I applaud Clyde Mann for his accomplishments, commitment, and vision for a National Science Day. If established, National Science Day will excite students about science as well as provide them with a knowledge base to prepare for the future.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that will create a simple tax on carbon. A carbon tax is a straightforward way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, spur development of alternative energy, slow climate change, and decrease our deficit. The impacts of climate change become more severe with each year we fail to act. The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and violent storms are becoming more common as the planet gets hotter. Our continued addiction to burning fossil fuels not only accelerates climate change it is also a drag on our economy. We need a policy that discourages the use of fossil fuels and promotes investment in efficiency and alternative energy sources. The simplest solution is a carbon tax. My legislation imposes a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide contained in a fuel. The tax is imposed upstream, at the point of manufacture or import where it is easiest to administer. No new bureaucracy will be needed. The tax increases every year at a predictable rate so that the market, including investors and individuals can adjust to the tax and plan for the future. Unlike a cap and trade system, a carbon tax does not require a complicated trading market, auctions, or an exchange to function and it is insulated from speculation and volatile swings in pricing. A steadily rising carbon tax will provide the certainty American businesses need to make the long-term investments in new energy sources that will break our addiction to fossil fuels. The United States can be the leader in green energy. A carbon tax will help to unleash American innovation and create jobs. That is why economists across the ideological spectrum--from Arthur Laffer and Alan Blinder on the right, to Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz on the left--have endorsed the idea. Through border adjustments, my legislation will protect American manufacturers and ensure that imported goods from countries like China are not given an unfair advantage over American products. At a time of deep budget cuts meant to reduce the deficit, a carbon tax can be part of the deficit solution. My legislation will dedicate $437 billion toward deficit reduction over 10 years. In addition, the Save Our Climate Act will protect families from increased energy prices. Revenue generated will be distributed back to individuals as a yearly dividend to all Americans. The average dividend in the first year of the bill would be $172 per person, rising to $761 in the fifth year and $1126 in the tenth year. We have a moral obligation to act to prevent catastrophic climate change and preserve our planet for future generations. The Save Our Climate Act is a first step toward meeting that obligation and creating a sensible tax code that incentivizes innovation and rewards responsibility. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (TAA) and in opposition to the three free trade agreements between the U.S. and South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. TAA provides essential assistance to workers who lose employment due to trade agreements with foreign countries. We need to extend it. More than 280,000 displaced workers in 2010 relied on the greater job training options, health care tax credit coverage, and extra weeks of income support provided under the TAA program to get back on their feet after losing their jobs to foreign countries. The residents of my district in California have firsthand experience with the benefits of TAA. California has seen multiple plant closings due to trade with countries around the globe. Last year, the NUMMI auto plant in my district closed and nearly 5,000 employees lost their jobs along with thousands more who worked at suppliers for the plant. For these workers, TAA is a lifeline that is providing retraining, education, and other assistance to help them find new jobs. U.S. trade policies and free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and DR- CAFTA, have decimated our manufacturing sector. They have protected corporate interests at the expense of workers and created incentives to ship jobs overseas. I opposed those agreements and I oppose the unfair free trade Agreements with Panama, Korea and Colombia that are currently before Congress. If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to focus on creating jobs and not shipping more jobs overseas. These three free trade agreements follow the same failed Bush-era trade policies that allow multinational corporations to challenge public interest laws that protect the environment, health, and workers. The agreement with South Korea will increase our trade deficit by billions of dollars and cost us an estimated 159,000 jobs. The Colombia agreement stands out because it would have us lower trade barriers with a country in which only 2 percent of workers are unionized and more trade unionists are murdered annually than anywhere else in the world. We should not sign more agreements that ship our jobs overseas, grant exceptional rights to large corporations, and fail to protect workers' rights or our environment. Republicans in Congress have spent eight months tying the extension of critical TAA benefits to the three pending free trade agreements. In doing so, they've abandoned the very people who will get our economy going again: workers. It is a further wrong that the extension of TAA is just for two years, and not longer. These new trade agreements are going to be permanent. We should ensure that permanent TAA protections are there for the workers who will lose their jobs as a result of the trade agreements. Our vote today in favor of an extension of TAA will provide real help to these workers and their families. We owe it to them to support TAA and to oppose the three pending free trade agreements that will cost more jobs. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve Jobs, Apple's co- founder, who passed away yesterday after a lengthy battle with cancer. In his short 56 years on this planet, Jobs fundamentally changed the way the world communicates, learns, transacts and gets its entertainment. He also managed to make technology fun and widely accessible. In the early 1980s, I had the pleasure of collaborating with this once-in-a-generation innovator. At the time he was just a young guy. We met on an airplane and got to talking about a shared interest: getting computers, which were then cutting-edge technology, into classrooms. Job's vision was for Apple to give a computer to every school in the country. I had been interested in projects to improve kids' computer literacy in a world that was becoming ever more technologically sophisticated. At issue was our children's lack of access to that technology. On our cross-country flight, Jobs explained that he was bumping up against a tax hurdle in his effort to give Apple computers to schools. Donating goods to a school, he found, was not viable for a business because they could only write off the very minimal production cost of the item. This limitation made it financially untenable for Apple, or any other manufacturer, to donate computers to schools. Somewhere over the Midwest, Jobs and I agreed to work together to remove this barrier. In the months that followed, Jobs came out to Washington and helped me and my staff write legislation to create a charitable deduction allowance for computer donations to elementary, middle and high schools. Senator John Danforth, a Missouri Republican, picked up the torch and introduced the legislation in the Senate. Our original bill passed the House with flying colors but died in the Senate. In the next Congress, Rep. Bill Archer, a Texas Republican, joined me in the House to champion the bill that became law in 1984. Passage paved the way for the broad distribution of donated computers to our kids' schools. Critics questioned whether the donated computers would ever make it out of the boxes they came in because not every teacher was technologically minded. Others called the federal tax credit a waste of money. How wrong they were. Steve Jobs made technology accessible the world over by putting computers into our classrooms, our homes, and our pockets. In honoring his life, we must remember naysayers' initial doubts about whether computer technology was worth federal investment. As we consider our federal deficit and ways to shrink it, we must not become so rigid as to fail to support innovation. Had we not taken that risk decades ago, our educational system, our communities and our world would be a drastically different place.