Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this bill. I recently read in the press that 8 out of 10 of my colleagues know nothing about economics or banking. This bill shows that account is quite right. This bill does nothing but bail out Wall Street and large corporate America. It spends $800 billion that taxpayers will end up having to pay for and it does nothing for middle-income Americans. Is there a crisis in this country? Yes there is. But this is not the solution for those people who have been working and trying to pay their bills. There is not a crisis facing your average community bank which has no problem in liquidity. There is not a crisis for your credit cards-- endangering their ability to work. This rushed bailout package is nothing more than President Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson's way to scare us as Colin Powell tried to scare us some years ago by saying if we didn't vote for an ill- conceived war, we'd see terrorists on the street. You're getting the same kind of misinformation now--the same kind of rush to judgment--to tell you that a crisis will occur. It won't. Vote no, and let's come back and help work on a bill that will help all Americans.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud House and Senate passage by unanimous consent of H.R. 7198, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008. Representative Tubbs Jones' life ended as she lived it; by exemplifying concern for the welfare of others. She donated her organs in the waning hours of her life so that the lives of others could continue. In that spirit, this legislation creates a commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. It is a fitting tribute to her, and I look forward to seeing this program get up and running. This bill is a modified version of H.R. 6950, which passed the House on September 25, 2008. We modified the bill in order to address concerns from the other body and ensure its passage. Unfortunately, in modifying the bill, we had to delete findings included in H.R. 6950. I ask to insert these findings into the Record. (1) Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was dedicated to eliminating health disparities and protecting vulnerable populations. (2) Through her service on the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, she was a strong voice for those who were poor, elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, and disenfranchised. (3) Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones' concern for others was demonstrated by the decision to donate her organs, so that as her life ended, the lives of others continued. (4) There are currently 99,625 candidates for organ donation on the national transplant waiting list. Every 16 minutes, a new name is added to such list. Sixteen persons die each day waiting for a life saving organ transplant. (5) Minority populations account for nearly 50 percent of those on the national transplant waiting list. (6) Diseases that can lead to organ failure, such as hypertension and diabetes, are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population. (7) While minorities donate organs in proportion to their population, the rate of organ donations fails to keep pace with the need for transplants in the population. African Americans, for example, represent about 13 percent of the population and 12 percent of organ donors, but comprise roughly 23 percent of individuals on national transplant waiting list for kidney transplants. (8) Transplantation success rates are higher when organs are matched between people sharing the same racial and ethnic background. (9) Because of the disparities in the need for organs, minorities are more likely to wait longer to find a successful match and are more likely to be sicker when an organ is found. (10) An increase in minority organ donations would decrease the waiting time and increase the likelihood of successful transplantations for minorities.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. President Bush tells us that we face unparalleled financial doom if this $700 billion bailout is not approved today. He and his Treasury Secretary--a former Wall Street fat cat--tell us that we have reached the point of ``crisis.'' That is a familiar line from this President. It sounds like the disastrous rush to war in Iraq and the subsequent stampede to enact the Patriot Act. As I opposed the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, I stand in opposition to his latest rush to judgment. We are not in a sudden crisis. It has been building over the past 8 years of the Bush Administration. Lax oversight of the financial industry ballooned into a house of cards. Homeowners throughout the country have seen property values decline as their mortgage rates adjusted upward. As a result, millions of people across our country have already lost their homes to foreclosure and many more are on the way. It is easy to blame consumers for purchasing homes they couldn't afford. However, these consumers weren't informed of the extreme risk they were assuming. Creative financiers invented a market for these risky mortgages and preyed upon consumers by peddling the American dream of homeownership to make that market flourish. While those were poor choices by consumers, they pale in comparison to the irresponsible bets made on Wall Street. These mortgages and their declining collateral values are the root of this financial crisis. We now face a choice. President Bush tells us we must inject $700 billion into this market to avoid a total meltdown. He and Secretary Paulson say it is the only answer. Many economists--who don't have a financial stake in Wall Street or an 8-year record of bad decisions-- tell us it isn't the only choice. An option would be to assist homeowners with their mortgage payments. By making sure these mortgages remain viable, the market should stabilize. The bill before us today is basically the same three-page Wall Street give away first put forth by President Bush. The fig leaf adjustments are not enough to outweigh the fact that, no one knows if this bill is what's needed. I'm not willing to make a $700 billion gamble that President Bush is right after 8 years of seeing all that he's done wrong.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Nursing Home Transparency and Quality of Care Improvement Act of 2008'' with my colleague Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois. This legislation is a companion bill to one introduced by my Senate colleagues, Senators Grassley (R- IA) and Kohl (D-WI). I thank them for their leadership and look forward to working with them on this issue in the next Congress. It has been 20 years since passage of the Nursing Home Reform Act. Despite improvements in some areas of quality, there is still much to be done. I am introducing this bill because the lives of our most frail senior citizens are at stake, and our return to this issue is long overdue. I recognize we are in the waning days of this Congress, and I look forward to hearing feedback from my colleagues and interested parties in the coming months. It is my hope we will move forward on this issue in the 111th Congress. A disturbing trend has been underway in the nursing home industry recently. Nursing home chains have changed their corporate structure in ways that conceal the ownership and management of individual facilities. In doing so, the chains are able to shield assets and limit liability. They obscure regulators' efforts to find the responsible party and seek corrective action or collect monetary penalties. Beneficiaries are similarly limited in their ability to seek remuneration for injury or neglect. The result is a woeful lack of transparency and accountability. How can we hold nursing home chains accountable for the quality of care if they are hiding their true ownership relationships? Even more worrisome is the negative effect on quality that may result from these changing corporate structures. The heightened focus on profit maximization in the restructured organizations may come at the expense of quality of care. When cost cutting leads to staffing cuts, patient care suffers, and our most frail seniors and people with disabilities are put in jeopardy. We must not forget that this industry operates largely on the government dime. Medicare and Medicaid pay for the majority--60 percent--of spending on nursing homes annually, with the remainder coming from people's own wallets or from private insurance. At anyone time, nearly 80 percent of residents living in nursing homes are supported by public funds. These troubling trends in ownership and quality are occurring at the same time that the nursing home industry is enjoying healthy Medicare margins of nearly 13.1 percent in 2006. For profit nursing homes are doing even better, with soaring stock prices and Medicare margins of 16 percent in 2006. The federal government has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to make sure we know who those providers are and what they are doing, and ensure they are using government dollars to provide high quality care for our nation's nursing home residents. That is why we are introducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Transparency and Quality of Care Improvement Act would place patients before profits. It provides protections to residents when a home closes, and brings structure to the complaint process. It increases the transparency of nursing home ownership and operations so that seniors and their families know who is calling the shots, and what level of care is being provided in the home. It improves the data available on Medicare's Nursing Home Compare Web site so that families are well-informed when making decisions about the care of their loved one. The bill also improves staff training. The bill strengthens the current enforcement system via mandatory compliance and ethics programs, new quality assurance efforts, and meaningful enforcement penalties.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, my remarks shall be brief, because the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health on the Committee on Ways and Means was participating and is so adequately up on this bill that he just said it all. I would associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. I rise in support of the QI Program Supplemental Funding Act, S. 3560. At nearly $100 a month, the Part B premium can be a real hardship for seniors living on low incomes. This bill is necessary to ensure that low-income Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes between $12,000-$14,000 are able to continue receiving financial assistance for the cost of their Medicare premiums. I support extending this vital program. If this bill doesn't pass, States will drop poor seniors from the program. My only complaint is that we should be doing more than this today. We have technical corrections from the Medicare legislation we passed earlier this year which should be before us as part of this legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to reach agreement to incorporate those needed provisions in this bill. There is much we need to do to maintain our commitment to Medicare and Medicaid. This bill is a tiny part of that work. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and on both sides of the Capitol--to do much more.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be brief. I am here to establish my ranking among distinguished Members like Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Miller, Chairman Andrews, Ranking Member McCrery, Ranking Member Camp and all of my colleagues. We all get the title today as pieces of parsley on a platter of fish. We are here to garnish the work that Jim Ramstad and Patrick Kennedy, led by former Senator Wellstone and Senator Domenici, have accomplished with diligent hard work. Without it, we would not be here to protect the people and add the protection that people need. I urge my colleagues to support the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, H.R. 6893, to honor Patrick and Jim for the marvelous work they have done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. STARK. I have two or three speakers remaining.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008,'' and to thank the many colleagues and friends of Stephanie's who joined together to bring this bill to the floor. Stephanie's life ended as she lived it; by exemplifying concern for the welfare of others. She donated her organs in the waning hours of her life so that the lives of others could continue. In that spirit, this bill creates a commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. The need for organ donation is critical. Since the national transplant waiting list began, more than 80,000 donation-eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available; in 2007 alone, more than 6,500 people died for lack of a suitable organ. As an active member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Stephanie worked tirelessly to remedy health disparities in our nation. Organ donation is one area where dramatic health disparities exist, which makes this all the more of a fitting tribute. While minorities donate organs in proportion to their population, the rate of organ donations fails to keep pace with the need for transplants in the population. Minority populations account for close to 50% of the people who are currently waiting for organ transplants. I'd like to take a moment to recognize the help of former Senate Majority Leader and transplant surgeon Dr. Bill Frist, for whom this bill was named for when it was introduced earlier this year. Dr. Frist is a tireless advocate of organ donors and their families, and worked on behalf of the Gift of Life Medal Act. I appreciate his graciousness in expressing his strong support for renaming the bill, and I would ask the Chair to have Dr. Frist's letter of support inserted into the Record. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation, and pays tribute to the selflessness and memory of our colleague. Stephanie's dedication to improving health care should be permanently recognized. I urge passage of the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act. Nashville, TN, September 15, 2008. Hon. Pete Stark, Chairman, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Dave Camp, Ranking Member, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Stark and Ranking Member Camp: Thank you for your leadership on the Gift of Life Congressional Medal. Like you, I am truly inspired by those that donate their organs. I can think of no act that is more honorable or selfless, and it is befitting of Congress to pass this act to recognize these outstanding individuals and their families. I was pleased to sponsor this legislation in the Senate. It is also extremely fitting to name this legislation in honor of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A tireless advocate for those in need, she cemented her legacy by donating her organs and tissue, which will help over 50 individuals. Her act, and the thousands that have come before it, must be recognized. Each year, there are nearly 14,000 organs that are donated. As a transplant surgeon, I have seen first hand how lives are transformed through these miraculous gifts. For me, it is a privilege to be part of the transplantation process. I am continually amazed at the advances in technology that make transplants more successful every year. While advances are being made, there are still too few donors--nearly 100,000 people are waiting on national transplant lists. To encourage more donors, we should make every effort to recognize those that make this life-saving decision. I believe creating a Gift of Life Congressional medal is critically important to increasing awareness on this issue. Again, please accept my sincere appreciate for your work and strong support for naming the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act in honor of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It is a fitting tribute for such and outstanding and committed woman. Sincerely, Dr. William H. Frist.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend and colleague, Mike McNulty (NY-21), who is retiring after 10 terms in Congress. With nearly 40 years in elective public office, Mike has served his community as a local leader, a member of the state legislature, and its representative in Congress. During his Congressional service, I have been privileged to work by his side on the Ways and Means Committee. On our Committee, Mike can always be counted on to stand up for the interests of working families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. Most recently, as Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, Mike has been a leader in protecting Social Security from Republican attempts to privatize it. He's also initiated improvements to the program as well. For example, in this Congress, Chairman McNulty was able to secure $150 million in additional funding for the Social Security Administration to lessen the backlog of cases and better serve beneficiaries. While Mike has never been one to reach for the headlines, when it came to speak up for seniors and the middle class, Mike's voice was always heard loud and clear. We will miss Mike's friendship and his steady leadership in Congress. The people of upstate New York are losing an outstanding representative, and we are all grateful for his lifetime of service to his community and our Nation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008'' with my colleague Mr. Camp of Michigan. Representative Tubbs Jones' life ended as she lived it; by exemplifying concern for the welfare of others. She donated her organs in the waning hours of her life so that the lives of others could continue. In that spirit, this legislation creates a commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. As I well know from my time on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Representative Tubbs Jones worked tirelessly to remedy health disparities in our Nation. Organ donation is one area where dramatic health disparities exist, which makes this all the more of a fitting tribute. While minorities donate organs in proportion to their population, the rate of organ donations fails to keep pace with the need for transplants in the population. Minority populations account for close to 50 percent of the nearly 100,000 people who are currently waiting for organ transplants. Since the national transplant waiting list began, over 80,000 donation- eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available; in 2007 alone, over 6,500 people died for lack of a suitable organ. Donating an organ to someone whose life depends on it is laudable, and it should be recognized and encouraged. The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act sends a clear message that donating one's organs is an act that should receive the profound respect of our Nation. I would like to thank Former Senate Majority Leader, and transplant surgeon, Dr. William H. Frist, for whom this bill was named in an earlier version in this Congress (H.R. 1765/S. 1062). Dr. Frist was a tireless advocate of organ donors and their families during his time in the Senate. He worked on behalf of the Gift of Life Medal Act for years and has expressed strong support for renaming the bill for Representative Tubbs Jones. We appreciate his graciousness in doing so. This legislation directs the Treasury department to design and produce a commemorative medal that the Department of Health and Human Services will award to organ donors or to a surviving family member. Enactment of this legislation would have no cost to the Federal Government. Funding for the medals would be self-sufficient through charitable donations. This is non-controversial, non-partisan legislation to increase the rate of organ donation while honoring the life and service of our colleague, Representative Tubbs Jones. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation. I urge swift passage of the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased that this bill, S. 3406, will sustain the rights and remedies available to individuals with disabilities, including individuals with learning disabilities just as in the measure passed by the House, H.R. 3195. Would the Chairman agree that the measure before us rejects the assumption that an individual who has performed well academically cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning reading, writing, thinking, or speaking?

Mr. STARK. I thank the Chairman. Specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are neurologically based impairments that substantially limit the way these individuals perform major life activities, like reading or learning, or the time it takes to perform such activities often referred to as the condition, manner, or duration. This legislation will reestablish coverage for these individuals by ensuring that the definition of this ability is broadly construed and the determination does not consider the use of mitigating measures. Given this, would the chairman agree that these amendments support the finding in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners in which the court held that in determining whether the plaintiff was substantially limited with respect to reading, Bartlett's ability to ``self-accommodate'' should not be taken into consideration when determining whether she was protected by the ADA?

Mr. STARK. I want to thank the chairman. It is indeed our full intention to ensure that the civil rights law retains its focus on protecting individuals with disabilities and not the interests of entities that may need to address their practices in accordance with the ADA. I look forward to working with the chairman to continue to protect individuals with specific learning disabilities to ensure that unnecessary barriers are not being erected in their path. I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished ranking member, our colleague from Wisconsin, and the majority leader for their work on this landmark legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I point out that this subcommittee stands as proxy parents for half a million children in this country who spend time in foster care each year. So I would like to thank Grandpa McDermott and Grandpa Weller on behalf of these 500,000 children whose lives are being improved, and Grandma Tauscher, for helping see that these children's lives are improved. I was lucky enough to have Cherita Jones, a former foster youth, as an intern in my office earlier this year. Cherita worked hard and was lucky to live with a caring foster family. She is now out working as an advocate for foster children. I am proud that we are taking this step here today. This bill does, in fact, continue foster children's care beyond age 18, and it further allows relatives, grandparents, to participate in supporting the foster children and allows them in many cases to live in loving homes rather than group homes and less permanent settings. I hope we can continue to work together to improve their lives, and I look forward to working with Chairman McDermott to protect the Social Security benefits of foster children and make sure that these resources are used for the benefit of these children and not as a funding source for general revenue to many States. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adamant opposition to the National Capital Security & Safety Act as amended. I commend my colleagues Delegate Holmes-Norton and Representative Waxman on the work they have done to ensure that the DC City Council remains the leader in enacting the laws necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Unfortunately, Mr. Childers' amendment ruins the intent of this legislation and has dire consequences for the Nation's capital. I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Regardless, I do believe that the DC City Council is in the best position to decide what regulations are appropriate for their community. Congress has trampled on the District's autonomy for long enough. The last thing DC needs is Congressional Members to repeatedly and unnecessarily intervene in issues specific to the District of Columbia. Equally problematic and more disturbing are the repercussions of Mr. Childers' amendment. His amendment throws out the DC City Council's emergency handgun regulations and replaces them with so-called regulations that in fact endanger their communities' public safety. His amendment allows for the stockpiling of semiautomatic assault weapons, fully loaded firearms in homes, and discourages the passage of common- sense legislation addressing safe storage requirements or age limits for the possession of assault rifles. The supporters of this amendment are not representing the people of DC, they are representing the gun lobby. The nationwide statistics on deaths caused by intentional and accidental gunfire are extreme to begin with, but Washington DC is rated as the thirteenth most dangerous city in the country, where the homicide rate is almost double the national average. Are the supporters of this amendment representing the families in the District who have lost their loved ones to gun violence? Or the policemen and women who experience up close the misuse of guns by both kids and adults every day? No. Supporters of this amendment are only supporting the National Rifle Association. We're not living in the 1700s, when governmental police forces were nonexistent and state militias were a constant threat to central government. Supporters of Mr. Childers' amendment need to pull their heads out of the past and face the present: gun violence is an ugly reality, and we're not doing the people of the District of Columbia any favors by considering legislation that will endanger lives under the disguise of protecting constitutional rights. The people who make up this country are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they certainly can't claim their right to the last two if they lose their lives. That's what guns do--they kill people. I strongly urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support a comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 6899, that will help to end our addiction to foreign oil and will move our Nation toward a clean energy economy. For nearly 8 years, we have seen the consequences of policies made by an administration that was literally ``in bed'' with the oil companies, as evidenced by the recent scandal at the Mineral Management Service, MMS. Profits for Exxon-Mobil and others are setting records, while family budgets are stretched to the breaking point by high energy prices. Rather than putting forth real solutions, the President and his congressional Republican enablers have offered a regressive plan and a slick political slogan that amounts to more giveaways to oil companies with nothing that will lower prices in the short-term or move our Nation away from fossil fuel dependence in the long-term. The Democratic Congress, in contrast, has already passed legislation, H.R. 6, to raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020--the first increase in a generation. Reaching the 35 mpg threshold will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, more than 10 times the amount of oil that offshore drilling will be producing in 2020. By 2030, we will be saving 2.5 million barrels a day, or the same amount that we import from the Persian Gulf. That is a real solution. I agree with the Department of Energy's assessment that expanded drilling will only reduce prices at the pump by 3 or 4 cents and not for another 10 years in the future. However, I support the legislation before us today because it represents a commonsense compromise on drilling that protects the environment and allows individual States to decide whether drilling off their coasts is appropriate. But this legislation is about much more than drilling. It is a comprehensive plan that takes steps to lower gas prices in the near term by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and fully funding energy assistance programs so families can heat and cool their homes. It reigns in the excesses of oil companies and ensures that they pay their fair share back to the taxpayer when they drill on public lands. Accountability will be restored to the scandal plagued MMS by enacting tough new laws with criminal penalties for MMS employees who engage in unethical behavior with the very oil companies they are charged with regulating. Finally, this bill ends our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels and confronts global warming. This legislation establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard that will mandate 15 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020, lowering the demand for coal and other dirty fuels. It makes an $850 million yearly investment in public transportation so that cities and States can expand services. In addition, the legislation will provide incentives for the production of renewable energy and will modernize energy efficiency codes for buildings. The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act is a real solution to America's energy needs. It may not satisfy the ``drill, baby, drill'' crowd, but after suffering through their failed policies for the last 8 years their slogans are little more than hot air. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health-e Information Technology Act of 2008, a bill to stimulate the development of a uniform, interoperable health information technology system for America. Such a system would enable every hospital and doctor to input a patient's information and pull up their medical record--all on-line and readily available. It would also make data available to researchers so that we could improve the practice of medicine. Health Information Technology (HIT) is the key to improving quality, gaining efficiencies, and reducing cost in the U.S. health care system. That's something that even people ranging from President Bush to Barack Obama can agree on. If the United States had such a system, we would be able to provide the right care, to the patient, at the right time. A nationwide HIT system would: Ensure that every hospital could access an emergency room patient's medical record to appropriately treat them. Reduce duplicative lab tests. One study found that 9 percent of all lab tests were redundant and that physicians canceled 69 percent of lab tests when their HIT systems alerted them to the redundancy. More quickly eradicate outbreaks of disease because the HIT system would allow us to analyze where people were sick and what they had in common. More effectively conduct post-market surveillance on drugs approved by the FDA to ensure that they really are safe and effective once they are on the market. According to the FDA, Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003. Providers with health IT systems were able to closely monitor their Vioxx patients and take them off Vioxx at the first sign of harm. Dramatically reduce the use of paper records which--on top of being cumbersome and environmentally unfriendly--also cause medical errors because of difficulty interpreting handwriting and an inability to easily detect orders that are inappropriate for the patient, given their age, allergies, health conditions, and other drugs they may be taking. One study found that 1.4 percent of hospital admissions were caused by adverse drug events, 28 percent of which were preventable, and at a cost of $10,000 per preventable event. There is no debate over whether we need such a HIT system in America. The debate is over the right role for government to foster the widespread adoption of such an interoperable, seamless HIT system. In this debate, it is vitally important to ensure that such a system has strong privacy protections and security requirements. Some might say let the private sector do it. I'd respond that we've tried that and it's failed. Currently only 20-30 percent of hospitals and 10-20 percent of physicians' offices have comprehensive health information systems. Even where systems are in place, they operate in silos and do not provide the aggregate data needed to improve quality of care. One reason for this failure is that private industry has spawned the development of unique proprietary systems. These systems may work well for the doctor's office or hospital system that purchases it, but they are unable to perform outside of their own network and therefore fail to meet the need of integrating our disparate health care system. This lack of progress is costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. Studies have indicated that widespread adoption of HIT could reduce health care spending by $80 million annually. Just last week at a hearing before the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, a representative for the California Association of Physician Groups (which represents large physician group practices in California) acknowledged that, while each of their member groups had adopted HIT, those systems were unable to talk to each other. The groups had each spent millions of dollars and suffered through reduced productivity during the transition, but their systems still cannot advance the practice of medicine in the United States or engage in other activities to achieve broader system efficiencies and quality improvements. That's why, in my mind, it is so important for the Federal Government to step into the arena of HIT. Not because I think Government is better than the private sector. But, because I think that if our Government has decided that a uniform, interoperable HIT system is a priority, we should step up to the plate to create the standards and help pay for its adoption. That's precisely what the Health-e Information Technology Act does. The Health-e Information Technology Act would codify the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Coordinator--with the assistance of an advisory committee representing private stakeholders and other appropriate public agencies--would be responsible for establishing and implementing a plan to achieve widespread adoption and use of interoperable, secure, and clinically useful electronic health records. In addition, the Coordinator would develop an open source health information technology system that is certified to meet the standards and would be available to health care providers at little or no cost in 2012, after the standards are established in 2011. Private vendors would be part of the process and would be encouraged to ensure that their products meet the new federal standards as well. The bill would utilize the strength and size of the Medicare program as a tool to assure the adoption of these standards. Starting by 2013, Medicare would provide supplementary payments to doctors and hospitals (each up to a capped amount) to help offset the cost of purchasing new HIT equipment, transitioning to its use, and training personnel. These incentive payments would phase-out on a sliding scale over a four or five year period, for hospitals and doctors respectively. After that timeframe, if doctors or hospitals failed to use an HIT system that meets the defined standards, they would be penalized by a reduction in their Medicare reimbursements. As not all health care providers are reimbursed by Medicare, there are grant programs to assure assistance to them as well. Maintaining the privacy and security of people's electronic health records is of vital importance. The Health-e Information Technology Act takes the protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, and updates them for the 21st century. It provides for protections to reach new entities in the e- health environment that were not envisaged by HIPAA, such as e- prescribing gateways and regional health information organizations, and addresses the increased migration of personal health information out of the traditional medical system through business associates. It shuts down the secondary market that has emerged around the sale and mining of patient health information by prohibiting the sale of patient information and applying stiff penalties to any individual or entity that uses or discloses health information in an unauthorized way. The bill also develops a culture of privacy protection through tough enforcement. To date, the Secretary has not levied a single penalty against a HIPAA covered entity, despite numerous privacy and security violations. This bill strengthens the enforcement of privacy and security protections by increasing the amount of civil monetary penalties that may be levied, requiring the Secretary to levy penalties in cases where violations rise to the level of willful neglect, and holding the Secretary accountable for actively enforcing the provisions through period audits and reports. I recently sat down with the chairman of a major medical association, the head of a physician group practice organization, and two former Medicare and Medicaid administrators--one for a Democratic president and the other for a Republican president. All four of them agreed that without a date certain in law by which a uniform, interoperable HIT system must be used by all of America's doctors and hospitals, it simply won't happen. They also agreed that, while it won't be easy, it is vital that we form consensus around such legislation. They, too, acknowledged that a system that provides financial incentives for adoption, with eventual penalties for failure to adopt, is a sensible way to proceed. With introduction of the Health-e Information Technology Act, I hope that we can move from the realm of private discussions to public endorsements. I am under no illusions that it will be easy to enact a bill like this. While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet provided a score for the legislation, we know that it will have significant costs. But down-payments are required to achieve yield on long-term investments. I am confident that a uniform HIT system will ultimately lead to dramatic improvements in the delivery system and reap great savings once it is in place. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as physician and hospital organizations, to enact legislation to require the development and adoption of a uniform HIT system. We've been talking about this for decades. It is now time to act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Eden Housing's 40th Anniversary Celebration. Eden Housing, based in Hayward, California, was founded in 1968 by a dedicated group of volunteers committed to expanding housing opportunities for disadvantaged communities. This group of six community activists was concerned about the lack of non-discriminatory, affordable housing in Alameda County. These pioneers, working out of makeshift ``headquarters,'' such as local coffee shops, were initiated into affordable housing development by rehabilitating six older homes in Oakland for first time homebuyers. Their next project was a much larger development, the 150-unit Josephine Lum Lodge for seniors in Hayward. Since those pioneering days, Eden Housing has developed 5,072 units of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors and people with disabilities. Its buildings are located in 21 cities in six Northern California counties. Although Eden Housing's initial home base for development was Alameda County, Eden's charter calls for the organization to work wherever there is a need for affordable housing in California. In the mid-1990s, Eden expanded the scope of affordable housing development to include provisions of free onsite support services and programs for its residents. To design and implement its resident support services, Eden founded an affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. I join the community in honoring all who have contributed to the success of Eden Housing. The community activists who provided the vision and leadership for the creation and early development of Eden Housing are noteworthy. Eden Housing continues to revitalize California communities through its affordable housing development and property management activities, through the partnerships it establishes and the investments it makes in California neighborhoods and through the free social services and supportive programs they provide to meet the needs of their residents. Happy 40th anniversary Eden Housing. I send you my best wishes for many more years of successful service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John J. Jermanis, Jr. upon his retirement as the City Manager of San Leandro, California. John's career with the City of San Leandro spanned 37 years. His first position was Assistant Finance Director where he served for 11 years; he next served as Finance Director for 15 years, and was then appointed City Manager in 1997, where he completed an 11- year tenure prior to his retirement. John was born and raised in Berkeley, California. He graduated from Berkeley High School in 1961, received his bachelor's degree in Business Administration from San Francisco State University in 1966, and has furthered his studies in Public Administration at California State University East Bay. After serving in the Army National Guard from January 1966 to January 1972, John took a position with General Motors' Personnel Division in Fremont from 1967 to 1968. He began his municipal government service in 1969 as an accountant with the city of Livermore, California and in 1971 he was hired by the City of San Leandro. Under John's management, the City of San Leandro went through one of its largest building periods in history, seeing the completion of the new main library, Creekside Plaza, Hilton Garden Inn, and Westgate Shopping Center. More recently he has overseen the rejuvenation of Bayfair Center, the opening of the San Leandro History Museum and Art Gallery and the opening of both the Washington Manor Branch Library and the Family Aquatics Center. Through his guidance, the city has also facilitated a fundamental shift in its business sector, from one largely composed of manufacturing companies to a sector that also includes service and high-tech companies. John points to his greatest accomplishment as his ability to build and maintain a strong rapport with each council member and city employees with whom he has worked. John also has gained the respect of his colleagues, and elected officials, as well as the San Leandro community. He has served the city admirably. His expert leadership, intellect and vast talent and experience as the City of San Leandro's top administrator will be missed. My hat is off to John J. Jermanis, Jr. as he departs for a well-earned retirement. Over the past 37 years, he leaves an unmatched legacy of commitment and dedication.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6630, a bill to Bar Access of Long-Haul Mexican Trucks. I do so to reject this Administration's dismissal of clear Congressional intent and on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who contacted me to express their opposition to this program. Congress has a duty to protect our highways from drivers without adequate safety equipment. This bill enables a full examination into the potential effects of allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United States. Then, Congress can consider whether to allow such entry. Congress has come together--on a bipartisan basis--time again to stop the pilot program. Unfortunately, we have been conistently disregarded by an Administration more concerned with pushing through cross-border trade agreements than the safety of our highways. In 2007, the Supplemental Appropriations bill explicitly contained language limiting the implementation of the pilot program. Despite this, the Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the pilot. In response, the 2008 Transportation Appropriations bill prevented the DOT from using Federal money to fund the pilot program. DOT challenged this language and continued with the program. At the end of July 2008, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously voted to end the DOT pilot program. Immediately afterward, the DOT defiantly declared it was extending the pilot program--not terminating it. The most vocal message from the House came with the passage of the Safe American Roads Act in May 2007. The bill posed time limits on the pilot program and reporting requirements on the DOT. SARA was a powerful, bipartisan effort. 411 members voted for the measure and only three voted against it. However, this overwhelming effort has been undermined by the Administration in its determination to open our borders to unsafe and environmentally damaging transportation practices. The Administration has performed legal and linguistic contortion upon contortion to find loopholes and semantic arguments designed to bypass the very clear intent of Congress; and Congress must not stand for it. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to protect America's highways and push back against such blatant Executive disregard for the intent of Congress.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to mourn the passing of my good friend and colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. While serving with Stephanie on the Ways and Means Committee, and more closely on the Health Subcommittee, I experienced firsthand what a fierce and effective advocate she was in Congress. She was an uncompromising champion for health care as a right for everyone. Her constant effort highlighting the disparities in our health care system and her tireless work on behalf of End-Stage Renal Disease patients made her an outstanding representative. She is, in a word, irreplaceable. Her spirited advocacy and commitment to justice and fairness were accompanied by warmth and strong loyalty. Those who worked closely with her were privileged to see both her intense passion and joy for her work. I extend my sincerest condolences to her son Mervyn and her sister Barbara, and the many women and men who counted her among their family and friends. As a colleague and friend, I am honored to have served beside her. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for the wage gap that still exists between men and women in today's workforce. Equalizing wages will provide women with equal pay for equal work and improve the standard of living for millions of American families. That is why I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The need for the reform of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) is obvious. More than four decades after Congress enacted it, hard-working women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar made by men. This is certainly an improvement over the 58 cents women earned when the EPA was passed in 1963, but it is hardly enough. And it still will not be enough when the day comes that women earn 99 cents for every dollar that a man earns. ``Equal'' is not a word that allows room for negotiation, and nothing short of women being paid the same wages as men should be acceptable. We are here today to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act for the fourth time since it was first introduced in 2005. That is three times too many. We took jobs as Representatives of the House with the promise to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. I don't see how it is possible to do that when we neglect to ensure that something as basic and fundamentally important as fair pay is granted to the working women of our districts. The Paycheck Fairness Act contains the tools necessary to achieve EPA's goal. It will increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for equal work, require employers to prove that payment disparities among men and women are job related and consistent with business necessity, and protect employees from retaliation after sharing salary information. In a country that prides itself on equality for all, it is unconscionable that women who do the same work as men receive less pay. I urge my colleagues to bring the ``fairness'' back into the workplace by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.