Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6331. For whatever reasons, people may be concerned with process. To me, that is a snare and a delusion. Basically, this bill protects the physicians from their 10 percent cuts. If you vote against it, you're voting to cut physicians by 10 percent. It improves benefits for seniors and people with disability, it ends discriminatory mental health copayments. So vote against the bill and seniors don't get mental health treatment. It targets extra help to low-income people. Vote against the bill and you're, as Republicans like to do, trashing low-income people for the benefit of rich insurance companies, the only one group that opposes this bill. It delays the durable medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration, which we have agreed on a bipartisan basis should be delayed. Vote against the bill and let the medical equipment competitive bidding go ahead. It makes improvements in quick pay for pharmacists. Vote against the bill and talk to your local pharmacists, my Republican friends, and see what they think about your voting against the bill, which would otherwise provide them prompt payment. The clinical labs, therapy services, rural providers, psychologists, social workers, dialysis patients all get help in this bill. So vote against it and go back and talk to your constituents who depend on those services for their quality of life. I am ready to have you do that because all of this is paid for in a balanced, fair method, suggested, I might add, by the administration's own actuary, and the Government Accountability Office and MedPAC all say that trimming the payments to Medicare Advantage is the right thing to do, and will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. So it's not a bill I wish we were considering. The CHAMP Act, which many of you voted, is one. But this is a modest compromise. I urge its support. For several years now, I have pushed to modernize Medicare's reimbursement for ESRD, consistent with longstanding recommendations from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO. The current payment system includes a perverse financial incentive to dose higher levels of the anti-anemia drug, Epogen, which can put patients at risk of death and serious cardiovascular events. Both MedPAC and GAO recommend replacing this system by reimbursing providers with one ``bundled'' payment for dialysis services and related drugs and labs, thereby removing the incentive to overuse items and services that are currently separately billed. This will encourage more efficient provider behavior while maintaining and improving patient care. This modernized payment system is consistent with the philosophy governing many of Medicare's other payment systems. It is imperative bundling be done in a way that is sensitive to individual patient needs, protects against provider stinting, and is not ``one-size-fits all.'' Including an outlier pool, risk adjustment, and a strong quality performance system all work to ensure that appropriate care is ensured. That is why I was very proud when the Children's Health and Medicare Protection, CHAMP, Act, which passed the House in August 2007, advanced ESRD bundling with these patient protections. That is also why I am disheartened by the ESRD bundling proposal before us today, as I have several serious concerns with this package. First, I am very disappointed to see that much of this package is designed to appease the profit-hungry interests of the dialysis and pharmaceutical companies. I have long believed that dialysis providers should meet strong quality standards in order to receive increased payments. I oppose the automatic updates in this bill. I hope that when structuring the quality incentive program, CMS pushes dialysis providers to meet a rigorous set of standards in order to get payment increases. In CHAMP, providers had to meet a clear and strong set of quality measures in order to receive bonus payment. Unfortunately, the initial anemia management quality measure in this bill is seriously flawed. The MIPPA quality measure tells providers that they are providing acceptable care as long as they haven't gotten worse than their past track record. That's like telling a D-student that they are doing fine as long as they keep getting at least D grades. This is wrong. We should be encouraging providers to improve the care provided. There are serious health issues at stake, with the FDA warning that using anti-anemia drugs in a way that raises red blood cell levels too high puts ESRD patients at risk of death or cardiovascular events. Sadly, the measure in MIPPA gives providers a pass as long as the care provided just doesn't get worse. Instead, we should be encouraging providers to get more patients within FDA's recommended range for anemia management. We tried to do this in CHAMP when we designed something that pushed providers to at least meet the national average, with the bar getting raised in subsequent years. If the MIPPA quality measure is enacted into law, I intend to work to override or modify it. I hope that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will instead develop a system that pushes providers toward improved performance and assesses them against anemia management measures that are consistent with the FDA label. A second flaw in this package is that it allows the large dialysis organizations, LDOs, to benefit from a mandated low-volume adjustment. I have no problem with a low-volume adjustment if it is warranted and set right. However, LDOs don't need it, and they shouldn't get it. Repeated studies by the HHS Office of Inspector General show that LDOs are able to get much better prices on dialysis-related drugs than smaller dialysis organizations. Even if an LDO has a low-volume facility, that facility still benefits from the price discounts negotiated with the parent corporation. Giving LDOs a low-volume adjustment is an unnecessary waste of money. Another flaw with the MIPPA package is that it only lets facilities fully opt-in to the bundled payment system in the first year of the phase-in. I suspect that facilities will find the incentives for practice patterns under the old system and new systems to be in conflict, and may quickly realize that moving directly to bundling in year two is easier. To the extent bundling incentivizes more efficient behavior and has the necessary patient protections, if a facility wants to opt-in in year two or three, I see no reason to stop them. I would also like to clarify something about the bundle itself. MedPAC has repeatedly pushed for a broader ESRD bundle. My understanding of the MIPPA language is that it provides for inclusion of all oral dialysis-related drugs in the bundle, including calcimimetics and phosphate binders. Specifically the term ``items and services'' at clause (14)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act, as amended by MIPPA, and the reference to ``other drugs and biologicals'' at clause (14)(B)(iii), both afford the Secretary broad discretion to include oral drugs furnished to an individual for the treatment of end stage renal disease that don't necessarily have an IV equivalent. I know why some pharmaceutical companies want to exclude these drugs from the bundle. They want another product line where they can play their separately billable game and try to drive up utilization and corporate profits. That is contrary to the philosophy of bundling and not the intent of Congress. These drugs should be included in the bundle to prevent cost shifting to Part D in order to circumvent the new bundled payment. Most importantly, it would ensure that decisions as to which drug a patient receives are driven by clinical decisions not reimbursement policy. This will also ensure that all drugs furnished to patients for the treatment of ESRD are captured in the new bundled payment. I also believe the bundle should set in a way, including any appropriate adjustments, so that more frequent home dialysis, both peritoneal and hemodialysis, is adequately paid and encouraged. ESRD bundling is long overdue, but it is unfortunate that industry has demanded such a high price for it. If this bill becomes law, I intend to keep pushing for these changes and will be watching and weighing-in heavily as CMS moves forward with implementation. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and urge my colleagues to support the bill. The distinguished gentleman from Louisiana was quite correct; we have worked together on this. But for us now to depend on the other body is sheer folly. We quite have an idea of what they will send us, and it will be much less. There will be no prompt pay for pharmacists in the other body's bill. They will cut payment to oxygen providers and wheelchair providers. There will be less for low income seniors. There will be no preventative services. The only difference will be a slightly less cut to the private fee for service plans, and the administration actuaries have just recently sent us an e-mail saying this will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund. And I apologize also to my distinguished ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, and I understand when we have 50 groups supporting our bill and you only have one, the lobbyists for the private fee for service plan, it gets a little annoying. But we will see if we can find one other group to support your bill. I doubt it, but we will try. I urge this. This may be the last chance. I won't discuss process, but we all know that we cannot rely on the other body to come together and work as well as we have on a bipartisan basis. Every part of this bill has had support on a bipartisan basis over the last year in this House. It is put together to get as much as we can for as little cost to the providers, to extend benefits to the seniors, to provide preventative care, to give mental health parity, and pay the doctors what they are entitled to. Please support the bill, and let us finish our work this week.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) for a unanimous consent request. (Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support important progress toward reforming our troubled child welfare system. Today, we can come one step closer to fulfilling our promise to abused and neglected children that we will protect them, heal their wounds, and provide them with stable and loving homes. Anyone who has paid attention to the plight of our half a million foster children and the millions of former foster children should be angry at how miserably we have failed them. Once a child enters the system, we, the government, become their parents. Just like parents, we have a moral obligation to act in their best interests. Unfortunately, many foster children are cycled from placement to placement and school to school, over-medicated with psychotropic drugs, and kept apart from their siblings and other relatives who could provide them with support. Not surprisingly, former foster youth are not doing well. They are more likely to become homeless, incarcerated, disconnected from education and the workforce, or using drugs than nearly any other group of individuals. Perhaps most shockingly, these youth suffer from post traumatic stress disorder at rates comparable to Iraq war veterans. The ``Fostering Connections to Success Act'' allows us to turn our anger into action. This legislation will create permanency for thousands of children by providing Federal assistance to grandparents and relatives who care for a foster child. In my home State of California, a State-funded Program exists to help ease the financial burden for relative caregivers. Much needed Federal support will ensure that this program will not be zeroed out during the current fiscal crisis and will be able to expand to help additional children. This bill also recognizes a truth that is obvious to any parent: turning 18 does not mean that a young person is ready to live on their own. I have heard from too many former foster youth that when they turned 18 they found their belongings placed in garbage bags with no idea where they would live or how they would support themselves. By extending assistance to foster youth until age 21, we an help ease their transition into adulthood. Finally, this legislation takes important steps to promote educational stability for foster children and better oversee their medical care. During committee hearings we heard accounts from advocates and former foster youth about children on multiple psychotropic drugs prescribed by different doctors that never spoke to each other. Many foster children have serious and complex physical and mental illnesses. Their care must be coordinated and appropriate. This bill requires oversight and accountability to ensure that foster children are not overly medicated, but receiving effective, high- quality health care. I am heartened that this legislation has strong support from both sides of the aisle. It should. These are our children and we should provide them with the same level of support we provide for children living under our own roofs.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Lee Stevens-Glover, who is retiring on June 18, 2008 after 36 years of service in music education in the city of Fremont, California. Ms. Stevens-Glover has inspired young voices at Irvington High School from 1972 through 2004 and at Mission San Jose High School from 1982 through 2008. Ms. Stevens-Glover's exemplary career as a vocal specialist started in 1968 as a graduating senior from Mission San Jose High School, when she was presented with the Bank of America Achievement Award Plaque for Fine Arts. Her excellence in education has earned her many awards and honors. The recognition she has received includes the Distinguished Teacher in Presidential Scholars Program from former President Bill Clinton, the Outstanding Teacher of the Year Award from the Fremont School Management Association, the Outstanding Alumni Teacher of the Year Award from California State University in Hayward, the Excellence in Education Award from the Fremont Education Foundation, and the Don Gercich Award for Outstanding Service to Mission San Jose High School. On June 15, 2008, a concert and reception will be held to honor Ms. Stevens-Glover's distinguished career in music education. She has provided a wealth of music education to students through the years, which has enriched their lives immeasurably. I join the community in thanking Ms. Stevens-Glover for her dedicated efforts, her inspiration and commitment to all those who were fortunate to be the beneficiary of her extraordinary teaching skills.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hayward, California City Council Member Bill Ward, who will be retiring from office at the end of his term on July 8, 2008. Bill was elected to the Hayward City Council in 1984 and has dedicated 24 years of exemplary service to the city of Hayward during his tenure. Bill has been a Hayward resident since 1975. He and his wife, Gail, have two adult children. He received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Howard University in Washington, DC and a Master's degree in City Planning from the University of California, Berkeley. During his tenure as a member of the Hayward City Council, Bill served on many of the Council's Committees, including the Downtown Committee, Commercial Center Improvement Committee, Technology Application Committee and was the Council Liaison to the Economic Development Committee. He has been instrumental in the initiation and development of many significant projects in Hayward. He has served on the city of Hayward's Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and the Citizens Advisory Commission. He is also a former member of the St. Rose Hospital Foundation. Bill's professional organizations include the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, and the Association of Environmental Professionals. His intergovernmental agency assignments included service on the Alameda County Housing Authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the East Bay Dischargers Authority, and the Regional Airport Planning Committee. Bill Ward has left an indelible mark on the city of Hayward and beyond. On July 10, 2008, there will be a farewell celebration to thank Council Member Bill Ward for his dedicated public service. I join in applauding him for a job well done and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Acquisition Reform Act of 2008.'' I am pleased to be introducing this bill with my Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Representative Dave Camp (R-MI); Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY); House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH); Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell (D-MI); and Energy and Commerce Committee Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ). In particular, I would like to thank Mr. Camp for helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. The Medicare Modernization Act mandated a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment in Medicare and allowed the program to be nationally implemented after a several year phase-in. Unfortunately, the Administration developed the program with blinders on to the needs of patients and the small companies who make up the durable medical equipment industry. Our subcommittee held a hearing on implementation of the bidding program on May 6, 2008. We heard testimony from numerous stakeholders about the difficulties they encountered during the bidding process. For example, nearly two-thirds of applicants were disqualified because of improper documentation--when they had initially been promised that such documentation errors would be pointed out to them and they'd have an opportunity to correct any errors. We also heard from beneficiary organizations concerned about a number of issues, including maintaining access to benefits during what is likely to be a very tumultuous transition period. Without Congressional intervention, the flawed program begins on July 1, 2008. The bill we're introducing today delays implementation of the competitive bidding program for 18 months to provide the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with the time to create an improved program based on standards laid out in this legislation. Importantly, this bill comes at no cost to the Federal Government. The cost of delaying the program is fully paid for by the DME industry. Let me be clear from the outset in saying that I do not think this legislation goes far enough. If it were entirely up to me, I would be introducing legislation to repeal the current competitive bidding program and take far simpler approach to adjusting Medicare's DME payment rates. The program has already proved useful. It has shown that companies are willing to take Medicare's business for far lower prices than the current fee schedule rates. Overall, the estimate is that Medicare would save 26 percent over the current fee schedule in these communities. That's a significant savings that we can't afford to ignore. However, instead of repeating the bidding process again and again in each and every community, I think Medicare might better be served--and significant administrative costs saved--by taking what we learned in this first round to change the fee schedule rates by which we pay for DME now. Those improvements could be done once and would immediately be in effect nationwide. That seems far simpler and far less disruptive to both suppliers and beneficiaries than the program that CMS is now phasing in. One aspect of the competitive bidding program that I fully embrace is the requirement that DME suppliers meet quality standards through an accreditation process. Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General have told us in numerous reports, the DME industry has a ripe history of waste, fraud and abuse. The program's accreditation provisions are a good start in tackling these problems, and our bill strengthens those requirements. Specifically, the bill sets a hard deadline of October 2009 for all DME suppliers to be accredited. It also addresses a loophole that currently allows subcontractors to remain unaccredited. It closes that loophole by requiring that every company that supplies DME items to Medicare beneficiaries, whether they are the primary supplier or have a subcontract to supply DME, must be accredited as meeting quality standards. Just recently, additional concerns have been raised about the quality of some of the accreditation organizations. While we did not address that in this bill, I believe the administration has both the authority and the obligation to ensure that accreditation is meaningful. This bill was developed with strong bipartisan support and with input from patient advocates and industry representatives--many of whom have endorsed the legislation. It is the true definition of a compromise. It doesn't eliminate the program as some of us would have liked, but it lays out the standards for a much more fair and appropriate competitive bidding program for the future. Again, as the program has shown, Medicare is overpaying for durable medical equipment. Enactment of this legislation reduces such overpayments and simultaneously paves the way for a better competitive bidding program for patients and suppliers. I am proud that we were able to develop this compromise and require the industry themselves to come to the table to help pay for the delay. This bill is in the best interest of our senior citizens and people with disabilities who depend on this equipment to maintain independent lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in acting swiftly to enact this much needed legislation. Organizations endorsing the bill include: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association for Homecare, American Podiatric Medical Association, American Society of Transplantation, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Health Task Force, Health Industry Distributors of America, Invacare, ITEM Coalition, National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology, National Community Pharmacists Association, Orthotic and Prosthetic Alliance, Pedorthic Footwear Association, Rite Aid, the Endocrine Society, Vision Council of America, Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses Society, 3M Corporation. A more detailed summary of the bill follows: Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Acquisition Reform Act of 2008 Introduced by Reps. Stark, Camp, Rangel, Boehner, Dingell, Pallone and others, Summary The Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Acquisition Reform Act of 2008 delays implementation of the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) competitive bidding program. It would also make improvements to the bidding process, establish quality measures for DME suppliers in Medicare, and make additional changes to the program. The cost of the delay would be offset by a reduction in current DMEPOS payment rates. Background Durable Medical Equipment (DME) has historically been paid using a fee schedule. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a demonstration program to test competitive bidding as a new way to set payment for DMEPOS. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 went further, requiring CMS to implement competitive bidding nationally for the following selected categories of items and services: oxygen supplies and equipment; standard power wheelchairs and scooters; complex rehabilitative wheelchairs; mail-order diabetic supplies; enteral nutrients and equipment; continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices and Respiratory Assist Devices (RADs); hospital beds; negative pressure wound therapy devices; walkers; and support surfaces, including mattresses. Under the program, suppliers bid to provide items for one or more of the categories in a geographic area. Those whose bids are awarded are then permitted to supply the selected items to beneficiaries; organizations that are not awarded bids are precluded from providing Medicare beneficiaries with DMEPOS items targeted for bidding in the bidding area. Unless this or other legislation is enacted to delay the program, Round 1, which affects 10 metropolitan statistical areas is slated to start on July 1. The agency is required to begin implementation of Round 2, which will affect 70 communities, in 2009, although CMS has not released the exact schedule. After Round 2 is completed, competitive bidding may be expanded across the country and prices may be adjusted in non-bid areas using information from the bidding program. Legislation Temporary Delay Rounds 1 & 2 Terminate contracts awarded under Round 1 and restart the contracting process in those areas in 2009. Round 2 contracting process would begin in 2011. Payment adjustments for DMEPOS in non-competitive bid areas may not take effect until Round 2 is completed. Offset In January 2009, eliminate the annual inflationary adjustment for all items covered by Round 1 of the competitive bidding program and reduce payment rates for those items by 9.5 percent nationwide. This policy does not affect diabetic supplies furnished by retail suppliers because they were not covered by the bidding program. Items that had been subject to the reduction would receive a 2 percent payment increase in 2014, except in any area where a competitive bidding contract is in effect or CMS has otherwise adjusted payment rates. Bidding Process Improvements Require CMS to notify bidders about paperwork discrepancies and give suppliers the opportunity to correct within a reasonable time frame. Provide CMS the authority to subdivide MSAs with more than 8 million people. Exempt rural areas and MSAs with a population of less than 250,000 from competitive bidding for at least 5 years. Require that suppliers who bid on diabetic testing supplies offer brands that cover at least 50% of the market by volume (does not apply to Round 1). Before using its authority to adjust prices in non-bid areas, CMS must issue a regulation and consider how prices set through competitive bidding compare to costs for such items in non-bid areas. Require HHS's Office of Inspector General to verify calculations used to determine the pivotal bid amount and winning bid amounts. Quality Measures Require all suppliers to be accredited by October 1, 2009. Ensure that all suppliers, whether they are billing Medicare directly or are a subcontractor to another supplier, be subject to accreditation. Require contracting suppliers to disclose all subcontracting relationships to CMS. Exclude physicians and other practitioners from DMEPOS accreditation requirements until CMS develops provider-specific standards. Allow CMS to waive physician accreditation if the agency determines they are subject to other mandatory quality requirements. Establish a separate ombudsman within CMS to handle supplier and beneficiary issues related to the competitive bidding program. Other Changes Exclude complex rehabilitation wheelchairs, and related accessories when furnished with such wheelchairs, from competitive bidding. Exclude negative pressure wound therapy from Round 1 and require CMS to evaluate how these items are coded and paid. Exclude Puerto Rico from Round 1 re-bidding (did not receive enough valid bids in original Round 1 for CMS to award any contracts). Allow physicians and other treating practitioners to supply ``off-the-shelf orthotics'' to their patients without being awarded competitive bidding contracts. Allow hospitals in bidding areas to supply the same DMEPOS items that physicians and other practitioners will be able to supply (those that are considered an integral part of professional services) without being awarded contracts for those items. Ensure that podiatrists and other similar practitioners can prescribe DMEPOS items by using broader definition of physician in Social Security Act. (This relates to a drafting error in MMA that pointed to the wrong definition of physician in the Social Security Act when requiring face-to- face examination in order to prescribe DMEPOS items.) Delay mandated GAO report to coincide with delay to Round 1 and expand scope of report. Provides CMS implementation funding of $120 million.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the fiftieth Anniversary of Tennyson High School, located in Hayward, California. On June 7th, students, staff and alumni gathered at the school to celebrate this milestone anniversary. ``Be proud to be a Tennyson Lancer'' is the message educators passed along to current students at Tennyson High. ``Many former students take pride and have so much respect for their alma mater and we want that to transcend into today's student,'' activities director Monique Walton said in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary. Alumni were on hand for the event, which featured acknowledgements of the ten-, twenty-, thirty-, and forty-year reunions, recognition of sports championships and an alumni-versus-students skills competition. Staff and former campus educators were also honored during the dedication ceremony for those who have made an impact on the school community. Norm Prince, a former football coach, and Victor Serrano, a former soccer coach who now serves as the school's technology coordinator, had the multi-use athletic field named after them. Paula Banchero, who began her teaching career at Tennyson before becoming a longtime administrator, was also honored with the school's administrative hall being named Paula Banchero Way. Banchero spent nearly 40 years at Tennyson High School before being transferred to another school. Teacher Dan Morrison, who helped organize the fiftieth anniversary celebration, hopes this celebratory event will help lay the groundwork for an alumni association. The goal of the alumni association is to assist Tennyson students in fundraising for sports programs, band, and other programs. I extend my heartiest congratulations to all who have contributed to the success of Tennyson High School since its opening in 1958 and I send my best wishes to all who continue to work for the well being of Tennyson students.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of assisting the millions of workers who have exhausted their Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and are still struggling to find work in the wreckage of the Bush recession. While cutting taxes for the very richest, the President has left workers to fend for themselves. Congress has a responsibility to mend our safety net and lessen the impact of unemployment. In my home State of California, over 180,000 workers have run out of UI benefits, with an additional 520,000 expected to join them over the next 10 months. Even our Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has called on Congress to extend benefits. This legislation is simple. It will provide 13 additional weeks of UI to workers who are still unable to find employment after exhausting benefits. In States with high unemployment, an additional 13 weeks would be made available. All benefits will be paid out of the UI Trust Fund, which has $35 billion in reserves. Extending UI benefits is also commonplace. During the last seven recessions--1958, 1961, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 2002--Congress has passed similar legislation. The circumstances for unemployed workers are actually more dire today than they were during the past two downturns. Long-term unemployment is twice as high (18.5 percent of those without jobs have been unemployed for six months or more) as it was when Congress extended benefits in 2002 and 1991. The time to act is now. The economy has lost 324,000 jobs during the last 5 months. Gas and food prices are at or above record highs. Foreclosures continue to ravish communities across the country. Over 28 million Americans are receiving food stamps--an all-time high. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will provide benefits to 3.8 million unemployed workers. I urge all of my colleagues to exercise common sense and compassion and provide much needed support to working families by voting ``yes.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. John Bernard on his retirement on June 30, 2008 from the Newark Unified School District. Dr. Bernard has served as Superintendent of Schools for the school district since July 2003. A native of the Bay Area, Dr. Bernard is a product of the Oakland Public Schools, as are his three grown children. He and his wife have been married for 39 years and have five grandchildren. Dr. Bernard has held a number of positions of leadership in various school districts throughout the state of California. He served for 4 years as Superintendent of Schools for the Novato Unified School district and for 4 years as Superintendent of Schools for the Bakersfield City School District. He also served as Director of K-12 Instruction, and later as Assistant Superintendent, in the Mt. Diablo Unified School district in Contra Costa County. Dr. Bernard began his career as an educator in the San Francisco Unified School District, where he spent 20 years as a classroom teacher, resource teacher, assistant principal, personnel administrator and principal. Dr. Bernard earned his bachelor's and master's degrees from San Francisco State University in psychology and education administration, respectively. He earned his doctorate in multicultural education from the University of San Francisco. He continues to teach graduate courses at local universities and is often invited to speak, throughout the state, the nation and abroad, at conferences on instructional leadership, multicultural education, and education technology issues. As Dr. Bernard retires, he leaves a legacy of outstanding experience and service to our children and the field of education. His commitment to education is noteworthy and I join the community in thanking him for his exemplary contributions.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Earlie Mays, who is retiring from his position as International Representative of the United Auto Workers, Region 5, after 31 years of exemplary service. Earlie has been based in Fremont, California, through much of his career in the labor movement. I have been privileged over the years to work with him on issues of importance to working men and women. Upon his graduation from high school in 1963, Earlie enrolled in Laney Junior College in Oakland, California, and soon thereafter he was hired at Oakland's General Motors Plant (GM). He always had a great love for the Auto Workers' Union and was fiercely dedicated to workers' rights. He also had a great thirst for knowledge with a goal of promoting the welfare of others. In 1970, Earlie took a leave of absence from GM and attended the UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations, where he earned a certificate in Labor Studies. Immediately upon receiving his certificate, he was recruited by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' National Union to organize and service its Northern California local unions. During this period, Earlie honed his skills as a negotiator, grievance handler, organizer, and negotiator of collective bargaining agreements. Earlie returned to GM, which relocated to Fremont, California, and worked himself up through the ranks of labor. He was elected to various positions, including Alternate Committeeman, Executive Board Member at Large, and Chairperson of the Civil Rights Committee. He continued his educational endeavors attending United Auto Worker Summer Schools and the Walter and May Reuther Educational Center in Black Lake, Michigan. He frequently conducted classes for rank and file members in various subjects. In 1973, Earlie was elected Chairman of the Bargaining Committee of the General Motors Plant in Fremont. In doing so he became the youngest person, as well as the first African-American, to hold that office. His adept bargaining skills earned respect for the UAW. Earlie served for sixteen years as a Commissioner on the California Prison Board as an appointee of California Governors Jerry Brown and George Deukmejian. He has served as President of the Western Region A. Philip Randolph Institute, as Director of the UAW Regional Civil Rights Program, and as a member of the NAACP and the American Red Cross. I join the community in thanking Earlie Mays for his exemplary career in labor and his dedication to community service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Amit Zutshi, whose untimely death at age 30 on March 19, 2008 saddened the entire community. Amit was a resident of Fremont, California and shall be remembered fondly for the difference he made in the lives of others. Amit comes from an active family committed to community service. He followed his family's dedication to activism and the promotion of unity. Amit was born at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and graduated from Mission San Jose High School in 1995. He attended graduate school and was working toward an MBA from University of Phoenix after receiving degrees in information technology and business. He was employed by Microsoft and also worked for an eCommerce company in Santa Clara, California. On May 30, 2008, Amit's younger brother Rahul will introduce the Amit Zutshi Foundation. The Foundation's focus will be on children in need of social and community based services to help them thrive. May 30 also marks the 7th annual meeting of the Indo American Community Federation, a group Amit's father Jeevan founded to celebrate diversity. It is fitting that Amit's memory be honored by the formation of the Amit Zutshi Foundation. Amit leaves a legacy of hard work and caring for others. The Foundation will honor his legacy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a Farm Bill Conference Report (H.R. 2419) that will continue our wasteful agricultural policy for another five years. It is a rare day indeed that I agree with President Bush, but he is absolutely right to have issued a veto threat of this bill. With farm income and food prices at or near record highs, now is the perfect time for reform. Unfortunately, this conference report, while masquerading as a reform package, simply tinkers around the edges of our bloated agri-business subsidies. Our current ``farm policy'' is little more than corporate welfare, with benefits flowing to large corporate operations at the expense of small farmers, both here and abroad, who actually need help. Under current policy the top 10 percent of recipients received 75 percent of all subsidies, while 67 percent of farms receive nothing. This is not good for rural communities, small farms, or taxpayers. At best, this conference report represents ``half a loaf,'' as the group Bread for the World has said. The conferees got the nutrition title right and I commend them for it. There are important changes to the eligibility rules for the food stamps program as well as a raise in the minimum benefit. These changes, along with increases in funding for emergency food aid will have a real impact on the millions of families who are struggling to put food on their tables. If all this bill contained were the nutrition title, I would proudly support it. For all the conference accomplished on nutrition, they failed in greater measure on reforming farm subsidies. Proponents of the conference report argue that it represents ``reform.'' They can't be serious. Under this so-called reform, farmers filing jointly could have an adjusted gross income, AGI, of $2.5 million, or $1 million if their only source of income is farm-related and they could still receive subsidies. This amounts to cutting off only 0.3 percent of farmers from the dole. The report does nothing to means test countercyclical payments. Furthermore, the report creates an entirely new $4 billion permanent disaster program that is not only wasteful and redundant, but will also encourage pushing marginal and environmentally sensitive land into production. This is not reform. Real reform would mean eliminating all subsidizes for corn-based ethanol, which have driven up food costs around the world. Real reform would mean ending direct payments except for farmers who actually need assistance. By passing this bill, Congress is missing a golden opportunity to enact real reform. We should not wait another five years to make our farm policy equitable and responsible. By rejecting the conference report we can begin the important work of enacting a fair Farm Bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support two important pieces of legislation that will both keep families in their homes, and increase the supply of affordable housing. After years of lax regulatory oversight driven by the discredited ideology of the Bush administration and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress, our Nation is faced with a housing crisis. Sub-prime loans, once the darlings of Wall Street, are now adjusting upward and millions of families have lost their homes or are facing foreclosure. In just the first 3 months of 2008, over 113,000 foreclosure notices have gone out to families in California. President Bush has responded by providing a $30 billion bailout to Bear-Stearns, a major cause of the mess in the first place. Today, the Democratic-led Congress is proposing a real solution that will assist real families, and all the President has offered is a veto threat. I support both the Neighborhood Stabilization Act (H.R. 5818) and the Foreclosure Prevention Act (H.R. 3221). Together, they offer a comprehensive approach that will protect families, stabilize home prices, and expand affordable housing options around the Nation. This legislation will allow homeowners trapped in untenable mortgages to refinance into FHA-backed mortgages. Lenders and borrowers must each take responsibility by lowering the outstanding principal, and demonstrating an ability to repay, respectively. Requiring borrowers to provide a portion of resale profits to the government further lessens taxpayer exposure. The legislation also provides loans and grants to states to acquire foreclosed properties and turn them into affordable units for both sale and rent. Finally, this bill includes tax provisions aimed at assisting first-time homebuyers, easing the burden of property tax bills, and expanding financing of low-income housing projects. Just as important is what this legislation does not do. Unlike the bill passed by the Senate, these bills do not provide irresponsible and unnecessary tax breaks to homebuilders, nor do they include a tax incentive to purchase foreclosed properties that would likely increase the number of foreclosures. I urge all my colleagues to support both bills before us today, and vote for policies that will stem the tide of foreclosures and provide real help to struggling families. If the Federal Government can provide a handout to Wall Street, we can certainly offer a hand up to families.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would add my congratulations and praise to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the work that they have done to bring this bill finally to the floor for passage. It is a bill that has languished for over a decade. It is good to see that times have changed. We moved expeditiously last year through three committees and on to the floor, and it will leave this chamber today and head to the White House for the President's signature. It is a small but long overdue step toward approving our health care system and preventing employment discrimination, and ensures that our laws governing patients' rights are as current as the latest medical technology. Simply stated, the legislation provides peace of mind, and encourages people to take advantage of the miracles of modern medicine without fear of reprisal or consequences at work or in health care or in qualifying for insurance. GINA, as it is known, prohibits insurers and employees from using the genetic information to discriminate. Thus, a woman who has decided to find out whether she carries the breast cancer gene need not worry about losing her job or health insurance merely because she sought the test. Enactment of this law is critical to protect patients and is needed to encourage people to use robust genetic research and to encourage more research. Additional research will help us determine when we men will get colon cancer or prostate cancer, and not be afraid to go and receive those tests for fear of being discriminated against. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support of more than 500 groups representing patients, employees, physicians, providers, and others who value the protection that this legislation provides. I urge strong support for this bill. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield the balance of our time for the Ways and Means Committee to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and that he control the balance of our time.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the historic Art Deco Alameda Theater, in Alameda, California. The theater first opened in 1932 and boasted one of the largest screens in the Bay Area. Designed by the prominent San Francisco architect, Timothy L. Pflueger, the theater opened shortly after another one of Pflueger's historically significant theaters, the Paramount in Oakland, California. The 2 theaters share many of the same finishes and details. The Alameda Theater building was under private ownership and in continuous operation as a cinema until 1979. It has undergone a number of adverse changes to its interior finishes since that time. The deteriorating theater sat vacant or underutilized until the City of Alameda acquired the property in July 2006 and commenced restoration efforts in November 2006. The Alameda Theater restoration project is the signature component of a larger downtown revitalization project in the city's Park Street Historic District. A newly built movie Cineplex will be a part of the Alameda Theater complex and all patrons will enter through the historic Art Deco Alameda Theater lobby to access all the screens in the Cineplex. The Alameda Theater restoration project is a public/private partnership that resulted in the blend of a new theater complex and the saving of a historic treasure in the City of Alameda. The City will celebrate the reopening of the Alameda Theater at a gala on May 21st and a civic ceremony on May 24th. I am confident theater goers will appreciate the restored historic Art Deco Alameda Theater and will enjoy the entertainment benefits it will bring for years to come. Congratulations to the city of Alameda and all who had a hand in the development and completion of the historic Alameda Theater Restoration Project.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Douglas M. Treadway, who is retiring as president/superintendent of the Ohlone Community College District based in Fremont, California. Dr. Treadway assumed his duties at Ohlone on July 1, 2003. He is retiring on May 16, 2008, at which time his friends, admirers and colleagues will pay tribute to his exemplary leadership in education. Dr. Treadway holds a Ph.D. in counseling psychology from Northwestern University and pursued postdoctoral study at Harvard University. In addition to his chief executive officer career, he has served on the faculties of Northwestern University, the University of Hawaii and Oregon State University. He is the author of 20 research and scholarly publications in the fields of higher education, community and human development. Prior to his tenure at Ohlone College, Dr. Treadway served 9 years as president/superintendent of Shasta College in Redding, California. He has held other higher education executive officer positions including: chancellor of the North Dakota University System, president of Southwest Minnesota State University and president of Western Montana State College. During his time as president/superintendent of Ohlone College, enrollment has grown by 10 percent, with a total enrollment at the college exceeding 19,000 students annually. Under his visionary leadership, the Ohlone College Newark campus was developed on vacant land to become a 135,000 square-foot Center for the Health Sciences and Technology, enrolling close to 3,000 students during its first semester. As one of the founders of the American Association of Sustainability in Higher Education, Dr. Treadway lead Ohlone to adopt an environmental sustainability policy that has resulted in LEED platinum certification for the Ohlone College Newark Center from the U.S. Green Building Council. Dr. Treadway's community and professional service is exemplary. He has devoted many hours providing leadership in education and making a difference through his involvement in community service organizations. Maximizing human potential in teaching, learning and leadership has been the hallmark of Dr. Treadway's work during his tenure in education. He has achieved a level of excellence and commitment that is a model of success. I wish Dr. Treadway every success with his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today with Representatives George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, and Carolyn Maloney to introduce a bill that will bring our Nation up to date with the rest of the world. One hundred and sixty-nine countries guarantee some form of paid family leave. The U.S. is part of an illustrious four-member club of nations--including Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland--that fail to provide security for new parents or those caring for a loved one. The ``Family Leave Insurance Act'' will guarantee that workers will no longer have to choose between their jobs and their families. Since becoming law 15 years ago, the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, has provided job protection and guaranteed leave for millions of workers. Unfortunately, the FMLA is limited to workers employed by large employers--only 45 percent of the private sector workforce--and, because the leave is unpaid, lower income workers can seldom afford to take it. Recent studies have found that 78 percent of FMLA eligible workers who wanted to take leave did not do so because they could not afford it. At a time of recession and tightening family budgets, this predicament is only getting worse. A few years ago, my home State of California enacted the first paid family leave law in the country. The law has proven to be wildly popular. Despite the protests of business groups at the time the law was passed, most employers have come to embrace the law and realize that it facilitates continuity, productivity, and job satisfaction. Paid leave helps workers to strike a balance between work and family. Such a balance has real benefits for children. A Harvard School of Public Health study found that the education and health of children improves substantially when parents have work flexibility and paid leave. When parents are able to act as caregivers for a sick child, hospital stays are reduced by 31 percent. Parental involvement is also associated with higher achievement in language and math, improved behavior, and lower dropout rates. The ``Family Leave Insurance Act'' takes the next logical and necessary step by implementing a comprehensive paid leave program that will cover all workers. The middle class is getting squeezed: hours are longer, job security is lower, and families have less time together. A report by the President's Council of Economic Advisers found that between 1969 and 1999 children lost 22 hours per week with their parents. Workers and their families need greater flexibility and support. Yet, according to the Department of Labor, only 8 percent of private employers provide paid leave. Clearly, there is room for improvement. This bill will: Provide all workers with 12 weeks of paid leave over a 12-month period to care for a new child, provide for an ill family member, treat their own illness, or deal with an exigency caused by the deployment of a member of the military; Provide these benefits through a new trust fund that is financed equally by employers and employees, who will each contribute 0.2 percent of the employee's pay; Progressively tier the benefits so that a low-wage worker (earning less than $30,000) will receive full or near full salary replacement, middle-income workers ($30,000-$60,000) receive 55 percent wage replacement, and higher earners (over $60,000) receive 40-45 percent, with the benefit capped at approximately $800 per week; Administer the program through the Department of Labor which will contract with states to administer the program (similar to how the Unemployment Insurance program is run); Allow states and businesses with materially equivalent or better benefits to opt-out of the program. The ``Family Leave Insurance Act'' is endorsed by the National Partnership for Women and Families, the AFL-CIO, the California Labor Federation, Voices for America's Children, First Focus, and the National Employment Law Project. Members of Congress are constantly talking about family values. Let's go beyond talk and take action that families will actually value. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the ``Family Leave Insurance Act.'' We can strengthen families, make business more competitive, and create a better future for our country. The time to act is now.