Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute. Pending that, I would note that, as a former insurance commissioner, he understands that the endorsement of the National Association of Insurance Commissions is necessary to prevent fraud in the Medicare Advantage program.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond briefly to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, just to suggest that AHIP, representing America's Health Insurance Plans, wrote to us recognizing ``the ambitious effort will require significant resources. We believe that comparative effective research should be carried out as a public-private partnership, with funding from public sources and support from private sources, including health insurance plans, employers and manufacturers.'' And also to suggest that any recognition of children above the previously stated levels had to be done with waivers from the Bush administration to Governors requesting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Much has been said by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, by the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on how this bill helps Americans. Five million kids will receive medical coverage insurance that they don't now have. Seniors will receive preventative care with no copayments. They will receive mental health care at parity. Rural benefits will be extended to the rural communities that need assistance for access to their population. Low-income seniors will receive assistance in paying for their co-pays and their premiums. This bill is fully funded over 10 years, something my Republican colleagues never did in the past. I want to remind my colleagues that there are many myths being floated around here today. It is important to note that 83 of my Republican friends in 1997 voted for an identical bill. The bill that they voted on has the exact same income eligibility that was passed in 1997. The minority leader, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee, all voted for this and included a cigarette tax to pay for it. And I might added that the reductions that they put in their Medicare bill were five times greater than the adjustments we made in the bill today. It included an increase in the Federal tobacco tax. Now I don't know what has changed. Maybe they have learned to hate children in the interim, but nothing has changed in the eligibility. It is the same bill. If it was good for you, then it is better now. And it does a fair thing. The public is sick of radical ranting. They want health care for kids and seniors, and the way to get that is to support the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. I object.

Mr. STARK. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. STARK. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a letter from the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which in part states that: We believe the most important pro- life thing that Congress can do right now is to ensure that the State Children's Health Insurance Program is reauthorized.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, a member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). Pending that, I would explain that he knows that the NAACP, in a letter of endorsement, has said that this legislation fills a much- needed gap that currently exists in health care services for some of the most vulnerable citizens, low-income children, seniors and the disabled.

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

Mr. STARK. I think you have just touched on a misunderstanding. We had been led to believe that we would be rotating around among the various committees, and so that now we are kind of out of balance. Our understanding is that we would rotate back and forth between Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means for the full time. I apologize to the gentleman if we misled. Our concern was that we would be out of balance in the time between the two committees.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I object to the letter being introduced.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of pay equity. The rationale for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 should be obvious. All people, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and religious or sexual orientation, should receive equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, that is not the case today in America. African- Americans make only 77 cents for every dollar made by men, black families make about 60 cents of every dollar made by whites, and gays, lesbians and other minorities regularly face discrimination in the workplace. The Supreme Court's recent decision makes it incredibly difficult for employees to challenge acts of discrimination. The decision limits to six months the period in which victims can challenge their employers and be compensated for discrimination. Such a time limit was insufficient for Lily Ledbetter, whose pay slowly slipped in comparison to the pay of her male coworkers over a period of nineteen years. It would also be insufficient for millions of other workers, who often learn of pay discrimination only after the fact. The majority of companies do not release information on comparable salaries, making it, difficult if not impossible for employees to determine if wage discrimination is taking place. In a typicaly shortsighted move, Bush has threatened to veto this bill on the grounds of preventing frivolous lawsuits. The word ``frivolous'' can be used to describe many things, but it most certainly cannot be used to describe a bill that brings the people of this country a step closer to the equality that they deserve. For someone who claims he wants to spread the principles of equality and democracy to the people of the Middle East, it is unfathomable that he would fail to uphold these ideals for the people of this country. As representatives of a country that was founded on the idea of equality for all, there is no excuse for denying citizens the opportunity to contest acts of discrimination. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to continuation of a failed farm policy that takes from the poor to give to the rich. Although the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419 before us is being sold as a reform package, it is little more than a dressed up version of previous ``Farm Bills'' that have paid over $1 billion to dead farmers and $1.3 billion to individuals who do not farm. Our so-called ``farm policy'' overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest landowners at the expense of small farmers. The top 10 percent of recipients collect 60 percent of all payments. Large landowners receive the most subsidies, which allows them to purchase the best land from smaller farmers. This drives many farmers out of business and increases the price of land. This bill does lower the income cap and prohibits individuals with more than $1 million in annual income from receiving direct payments. Unfortunately, there are numerous loopholes in this provision, which led the Bush Administration's own Agriculture Department to estimate that as few as 3,000 out of the 1.5 million individuals receiving direct payments will be cut off. This bill therefore does little to end the corporate welfare that has become the hallmark of our agriculture policy. Congressmen Kind and Flake are offering real reform. I support their Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment because it creates a meaningful income limit to make sure no subsidies go to farmers with a yearly income over $250,000. It gradually reduces direct payments and reforms the bloated crop insurance program. These savings are then invested into conservation, minority farmers, fruit and vegetable production, and a $5.6 billion boost to vital nutrition programs. This is the new direction in which America's farm policy should be headed. I applaud the efforts of my many colleagues who worked hard to include additional funding for the Food Stamps program and the McGovern/Dole International Food program. Their efforts will help millions of hungry families in this country and around the world. However, this bill, does not go far enough to provide food for the hungry and looks to the wrong place to pay for the limited funding it does provide. If we are truly concerned about our Nation's hungry and poor, we could stop subsidizing agri-business and put the money we recoup from eliminating current subsidies to feed our neighbors and support family farms. I urge my colleagues to vote for meaningful reform, support the Kind/ Flake amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of making quality education and health care available to our children. The last 6 years of Republican budgets created numerous human deficits--in health care, education, child care, and social services. This bill takes America in a new direction, beginning to fill those deficits with long overdue investments in Pell Grants, Head Start, public and special education programs and community health centers. President Bush has threatened to veto this bill because he claims it is fiscally irresponsible. Only in an absurd parallel universe, where Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction, would increasing the amount of Pell Grants so that low-income students can afford college be considered irresponsible. Only in a fictional world, where abstinence- only education actually works, could increasing funding for childcare and Head Start be irresponsible. In the real world, these investments will generate valuable returns for--our children and our country. Passage of this bill is essential to repairing the safety net and providing our children with the world class education they need to become engaged and productive citizens. It is critical for the future of public education that the federal government provide states with the support they need to meet the laudable, but difficult goals set by President Bush's own No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. Unfortunately, the President has negligently underfunded his own law by $50 million. This bill provides a $2 billion increase in K-12 education funding, rejects the President's proposed cuts for special education programs for the 6.9 million students with disabilities, and expands the Child Care Block Grant by $75 million. Today's legislation also takes a small step toward improving our broken health care system, in which tens of millions of people are uninsured or underinsured. It expands access to health care for 1.2 million people by funding community health centers and state health access grants. This bill also makes overdue investments in the National Institutes of Health by providing funds for 545 new research grants. Such grants fund breakthrough discoveries that can dramatically decrease suffering and disease. I hope my colleagues recognize that this bill paves the way for a healthier, better educated, and more compassionate society and urge them to join me in voting yes.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of ending the War in Iraq. Last November, the American people demanded a new direction for Iraq. Today, the new Democratic Congress is taking a concrete step toward bringing our troops home. The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act sends a loud and clear message to President Bush. It requires the President to begin withdrawing American forces in the next 120 days and to complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1, 2008. This legislation is an important and historic step forward, but it does not go far enough. I support the immediate withdrawal of all American troops. Not next year. Not next month. Today. I oppose additional funding for the war because the situation in Iraq isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Since Bush announced his intent to escalate the war and deploy an additional 20,000 American troops, 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded. And for what? The administration just acknowledged in a congressionally mandated report that since the ``surge,'' there has been little to no progress on a host of political, security and economic benchmarks proposed by the President himself. In total, the war has taken the lives of more than 3,600 American service men and women and injured more than 26,000. Countless innocent Iraqis have been killed or maimed. This loss of life is obscene and must stop. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2956 and commit to withholding additional money for Iraq when Congress debates the next war funding bill in September.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of assisting immigrants who Congress invited to live in the United States because they were being persecuted in their home countries. Refugees arrive in this country with little more than the clothes on their backs. They often have no family in the United States. For those immigrants who are elderly or have disabilities and cannot work, their sole source of income is often the meager benefits--typically around $600 per month--provided by the SSI program. Under draconian provisions of 1996's so-called ``Welfare Reform'' law, refugess and asylees can only receive SSI benefits for a maximum of 7 years. To date, this law has caused more than 12,000 elderly and disabled humanitarian immigrants to lose their benefits and face hunger and homelessness. The Social Security Administration has estimated that an additional 40,000 individuals will be terminated from assistance in the next 10 years if the law is not changed. Leaving immigrants, who have suffered so much and come to the United States in search of protection, destitute with no means of support is unconscienable. Current law assumes that refugees and asylees can complete the lengthy and expensive citizenship process within 7 years and continue receiving benefits. For most refugees there is a mandatory 5-year waiting period before they can even apply for citizenship. With application backlogs that regularly near 1 million, becoming naturalized within 7 years is a longshot at best. Acquiring the skills needed to pass the citizenship test, such as English language proficiency, may be impossible for immigrants with severe disabilities. The SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act (H.R. 2608) takes the common sense and compassionate approach of temporarily extending the time limit by 2 years. This will provide relief to thousands of individuals facing the loss of their sole source of support. While this bill is the best we can do given the present fiscal environment, we should move toward completely removing the time limits. Doing so would bring us into compliance with International Conventions requiring nations to accord lawful refugees the same access to public benefits that they allow their own citizens. In addition, it would build on our Nation's tradition of opening our borders to immigrants escaping persecution and suffering. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, but I hope everyone recognizes that this bill only represents a partial fix.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. This bill provides the largest single investment in higher education since the Montgomery GI Bill of 1944, with no new cost to taxpayers. Today, Federal financial aid programs fail to meet the needs of many students. That means a college education is unattainable for many young people. Public university students can only expect one-third of the cost of attendance at a 4-year institution to be covered by the Pell grant, down from two-thirds of the cost covered in 1980. This bill makes higher education more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell grant by $500 and increasing the number of eligible students by over half a million. These improvements are long overdue. In addition to strengthening Pell grants, this bill builds on other existing Federal student aid programs to help provide our next generation with a chance to succeed. It lowers Federal loan interest rates to improve accessibility and ease the growing debt burden of graduates. In 2004, one-fourth of all graduating students with loans carried more than $25,000 in loan debt. Perversely, last year the Republican-controlled Congress enacted the largest reduction ever to Federal student aid programs to finance tax cuts for the rich. The College Cost Reduction Act--H.R. 2669--begins to reverse failed Republican policies by reducing the Federal interest rate on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 5 years. We must strengthen our education system if we hope to compete in a global economy. In addition to making college more financially feasible, careers in public service need to be rewarded. Quality elementary and secondary teachers are essential to our public school system, but in 2003-2004 their median salary was only $31,704. Teachers deserve more than pats on the back. This bill provides upfront tuition assistance for aspiring educators who commit to teaching high-need subjects in underperforming schools. This bill pays for itself by reducing some of the massive fees paid to the scandal-plagued student loan industry. Instead of subsidizing the profits of lenders, this bill puts money in the hands of low- and middle-income students. Not surprisingly, President Bush is siding with the big lenders and he's threatened to veto this essential legislation. He and the Republicans in Congress continue to obstruct real progress in education and almost every other domestic priority. We must address the rising cost of higher education, reinvest in our schools by attracting new teachers, and cultivate the next generation of American leaders. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for America's future and supporting this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, Medicare Advantage Plans--by name and by advertising--promote that they provide added value to the Medicare benefit. But under current law, MA plans are allowed to manipulate cost sharing for Medicare benefits. In some instances, enrollees save compared to Medicare. In many other instances, they spend more than they would in the traditional Medicare program. Few seniors or people with disabilities understand that--depending on their health--they could spend far more in a Medicare Advantage plan than they would under traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries are often charged more for home health, skilled nursing facilities, hospitalizations, durable medical equipment, Part B drugs (chemotherapy being the biggest service), and inpatient mental health services. These services are vital to millions of Medicare beneficiaries who face multiple chronic conditions and depend on affordable health care for their very lives. As Barbara Kennelly, President of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare so aptly puts it, ``While MA plans are required to cover everything that Medicare covers, they do not have to cover every benefit in the same way.'' The Medicare Rights Center emphasizes that, ``On a daily basis, our counselors assist older adults and people with disabilities enrolled in these plans who run into unexpectedly high out-of-pocket costs for their health care.'' In my district in California, one of the major MA plans in our community charges $275 a day for the first 10 days in the hospital. This compares to a single charge of $992 in traditional Medicare for a hospital stay of up to 60 days. That means patients in this so-called Medicare Advantage plan who have to go to the hospital for 10 days are paying $2750 instead of $992--that is not an advantage! With regard to home health benefits, Medicare charges no copayment for these services as recipients tend to be the most frail, elderly women who are often widows and living on very low fixed incomes. Yet many MA plans charge a 20 percent copayment for home health. They also impose tough utilization review standards to further restrict access to this needed benefit for our most at-risk beneficiaries. Attached is a chart which further highlights how beneficiary cost sharing for various services in a variety of MA plans surpasses Medicare's cost-sharing for those same services. It is just an illustrative sampling. The Medicare Advantage Truth in Advertising Act would fix this problem. It would require MA plans to cover all of Medicare's benefits with no greater cost-sharing than is charged in the traditional fee- for-service Medicare program. It would preserve the ability of MA plans to use flat copayments and per diem rates in lieu of deductibles and co-insurance charged in traditional Medicare, but it would prohibit their costs from exceeding the overall fee-for-service cost. In other words, it holds private plans to their propaganda that they're an advantage. This is a simple bill. It holds Medicare Advantage plans to their word and assures Medicare beneficiaries that they won't face higher out of pocket costs if they choose to join one of the private plan options so heavily promoted in Medicare today. With thousands of different MA plans out there and numerous complaints being filed about inappropriate and illegal sales techniques, the least we can do is assure Medicare beneficiaries that they'll still be eligible for Medicare-covered services at no more than Medicare prices. I developed this bill in direct response to testimony presented by Medicare beneficiary advocates before our Ways and Means Health Subcommittee this year. I am pleased that numerous groups support this bill, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Medicare Rights Center, Consumers Union, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and California Health Advocates. I urge you to join me in support of this common sense improvement to the Medicare Advantage program.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of strengthening environmental protections, preserving public lands, and confronting global warming. In the past 6 years of Republican budgets, our National Parks, forests, and wildlife refuges were recklessly neglected. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the main entity responsible for enforcing environmental laws, was left scrambling for funding. Nonetheless, President Bush suggested another big cut in his budget request. Fortunately for the millions of people who enjoy our public lands and who rely on the EPA to protect our air and water, the new Democratic Congress is committed to reversing years of dereliction. Instead, we are making overdue investments in environmental protections. The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) provides for modest, but crucial, funding increases in a number of areas including: $437 million above the President's request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that will allow approximately 150 communities to modernize their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure; $200 million increase over 2007 levels for the National Park Service to end a decade of declines in staffing, visitor services, and maintenance; $900 million more than the President proposed for EPA enforcement and scientific research. This bill protects coastal ecosystems and communities by maintaining the longstanding moratoria on oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This restriction protects the California coastlines that my constituents and I hold dear. Finally, after years of denials and stonewalling by Republicans, this bill recognizes that climate change is a reality and requires us to act. It would create a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation to make recommendations on how to best respond to climate change. This long overdue step will allow us to begin to address the many challenges that global warming presents. President Bush has issued a veto threat and called this bill ``irresponsible and excessive.'' What is truly ``irresponsible'' is wasting billions of dollars on a fraudulent war while ignoring the threat of global warming and failing to protect the environment and the public health. This bill begins to alter the dangerous environmental course that the President and the Republicans have led us down the last 6 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend CAPT Allison D. Webster-Giddings, U.S. Navy, for an exemplary and honorable Naval career. Captain Webster-Giddings, a native of Birmingham, MI, is a 1984 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. After earning her Naval Aviator wings in January 1986, Captain Webster-Giddings deployed to Helicopter Combat Support Squadron SIX, NAS Norfolk, VA, where she completed tours to the Mediterranean Sea aboard SNS Sirius, USS Concord and USNS Saturn. In 1989, Captain Webster-Giddings was assigned to the Commander, Naval Air Force, Atlantic, Air Operations Staff. In 1991, she was selected for Class 101 of the USN Test Pilot School, NAS Patuxent River, MD. Upon completion, she was assigned as the Dynamic Interface Department Head and H-46 project pilot of Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Directorate. In 1994, Captain Webster-Giddings transitioned into the Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer community and was assigned as the Avionics Systems Project Officer for H-60/H-3/H-3 aircraft at the Naval Air Systems Command. During this tour, she led the PMA-299 avionics team for the MH-60R/S aircraft and existing fleet avionics programs. Captain Webster-Giddings returned to the Test Pilot School in 1997, this time as an instructor. Captain Webster-Giddings commanded the Defense Contract Management Agency, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Oswego, NY, from 1998- 2001. Her command was responsible for the oversight and esxecution of $4 billion of Defense Department contracts. During this tour, the command received the DCMA Flight Award ``Small Activity'' and the Federal Service John N. Sturdivant Award. In October 2001, Captain Webster-Giddings returned to the United States Naval Academy. She currently serves as the Director, Faculty and Staff Programs, Center for Ethical Leadership. She has served as Deputy Director, Officer Development Division and Associate Chairman of the Weapons and Systems Department. She has taught several engineering, ethics, and leadership courses. She has served as the Officer Representative of the Women's Crew team and the Captain Joy Bright Hancock Organization (a women's professional organization). Captain Webster-Giddings education includes a master's degree in aviation systems from the University of Tennessee, Space Institute, with qualifications in test and evaluation, program management, systems engineering and production, and maintenance and quality assurance. Her personal awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards), and the Navy Expert Pistol Medal. She has been lauded twice by the National Aviation Club at its annual ``Women in Aviation'' recognition ceremony. Over the course of her career, Captain Webster-Giddings has logged over 2200 flight hours and flown over 35 different aircraft, including the first flight on the SH-60S. She holds commercial aviation ratings in helicopter, single- engine fixed-wing, and dual-engine fixed-wing aircraft. I would like to personally thank and congratulate her for her distinguished service to our Nation.