Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this bill to allow federal funding for stem cell research involves a simple question: should we use frozen cells to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, or throw them away and claim moral superiority? A supermajority of the American people wants to advance medical science. Congress has already passed this same legislation only to be met with President Bush's veto. Because we know that the President never lets the facts get in the way of his decisions, we know he won't change his mind. It is up to a handful of Republicans to say yes to the voters and no to the Christian Right so we can pass this bill by a veto-proof majority. I urge my colleagues to prove that they heeded the message of the recent election to stop posturing and start passing common-sense legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, as we vote later this week on negotiating better prices for Part D drugs in Medicare, we must remember that the debate is about much more than prescription drugs. Requiring the Secretary to negotiate for lower drug prices is just one small step in the fight against Medicare privatization and the conservative push to end the Medicare entitlement. Madam Speaker, I ask that the Paul Krugman Op-Ed from the January 5, 2007, edition of the New York Times be printed in the Record. First, Do Less Harm (By Paul Krugman) Universal health care, much as we need it, won't happen until there's a change of management in the White House. In the meantime, however, Congress can take an important step toward making our health care system less wasteful, by fixing the Medicare Middleman Multiplication Act of 2003. Officially, of course, it was the Medicare Modernization Act. But as we learned during the debate over Social Security, in Bushspeak ``modernize'' is a synonym for ``privatize.'' And one of the main features of the legislation was an effort to bring private-sector fragmentation and inefficiency to one of America's most important public programs. The process actually started in the 1990s, when Medicare began allowing recipients to replace traditional Medicare--in which the government pays doctors and hospitals--with private managed-care plans, in which the government pays a fee to an H.M.O. The magic of the marketplace was supposed to cut Medicare's costs. The plan backfired. H.M.O.'s received fees reflecting the medical costs of the average Medicare recipient, but to maximize profits they selectively enrolled only healthier seniors, leaving sicker, more expensive people in traditional Medicare. Once Medicare became aware of this cream-skimming and started adjusting payments to reflect beneficiaries' health, the H.M.O.'s began dropping out: their extra layer of bureaucracy meant that they had higher costs than traditional Medicare and couldn't compete on a financially fair basis. That should have been the end of the story. But for the Bush administration and its Congressional allies, privatization isn't a way to deliver better government services--it's an end in itself. So the 2003 legislation increased payments to Medicare-supported H.M.O.'s, which were renamed Medicare Advantage plans. These plans are now heavily subsidized. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal body that advises Congress on Medicare issues, Medicare Advantage now costs 11 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare. According to the Commonwealth Fund, which has a similar estimate of the excess cost, the subsidy to private H.M.O.'s cost Medicare $5.4 billion in 2005. The inability of private middlemen to win a fair competition against traditional Medicare was embarrassing to those who sing the praises of privatization. Maybe that's why the Bush administration made sure that there is no competition at all in Part D, the drug program. There's no traditional Medicare version of Part D, in which the government pays drug costs directly. Instead, the elderly must get coverage from a private insurance company, which then receives a government subsidy. As a result, Part D is highly confusing. It's also needlessly expensive, for two reasons: the insurance companies add an extra layer of bureaucracy, and they have limited ability to bargain with drug companies for lower prices (and Medicare is prohibited from bargaining on their behalf). One indicator of how much Medicare is overspending is the sharp rise in prices paid by millions of low-income seniors whose drug coverage has been switched from Medicaid, which doesn't rely on middlemen and does bargain over prices, to the new Medicare program. The costs imposed on Medicare by gratuitous privatization are almost certainly higher than the cost of providing health insurance to the eight million children in the United States who lack coverage. But recent news analyses have suggested that Democrats may not be able to guarantee coverage to all children because this would conflict with their pledge to be fiscally responsible. Isn't it strange how fiscal responsibility is a big concern when Congress is trying to help children, but a nonissue when Congress is subsidizing drug and insurance companies? What should Congress do? The new Democratic majority is poised to reduce drug prices by allowing--and, probably, requiring--Medicare to negotiate prices on behalf of the private drug plans. But it should go further, and force Medicare to offer direct drug coverage that competes on a financially fair basis with the private plans. And it should end the subsidy to Medicare Advantage, forcing H.M.O.'s to engage in fair competition with traditional Medicare. Conservatives will fight fiercely against these moves. They say they believe in competition--but they're against competition that might show the public sector doing a better job than the private sector. Progressives should support these moves for the same reason. Ending the subsidies to middlemen, in addition to saving a lot of money, would point the way to broader health care reform.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. For far too long, working class Americans have been struggling to make ends meet at $5.15 an hour, a wage that leaves a family of three more than $6,000 below the poverty line. Today we can make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. In 1997, the last time the minimum wage was raised, $5.15 went a lot further than it does today. A gallon of gas cost $1.27 and a loaf of bread was only $0.88. It may not seem to most like $2.29 for a gallon of gas or $1.14 for a loaf of bread is too much, but tell that to the minimum wage worker with gross weekly income of only $206. They still have to drive to work and put food on the table, which is nearly impossible at $5.15 an hour without multiple incomes or a second job. For years, states have responded to the inadequacy of the federal minimum wage by passing higher minimum wages. Those states haven't lost employers or faced higher than normal unemployment because of higher minimum wages. Small businesses in California, for example, haven't gone broke because of the high state minimum wage. The argument that small businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage is fallacy. Organizations making that argument are probably paying a lot more than $7.25 an hour to their snake oil salesmen. Some argue that increasing the minimum wage is paramount to the government engaging in class warfare. One of the richest men in the world, Warren Buffet, doesn't see it that way. ``There's class warfare, all right,'' Mr. Buffett said, ``but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.'' Failure to pass a minimum wage increase would be a huge victory in the class warfare by the wealthy against hard working Americans. Since 1997, Members of Congress have increased our salaries by 24 percent. We can't look our hard working constituents in the eye and honestly say we deserve big pay raises and they don't. Today we can give a raise to someone other than ourselves for a change and have a positive impact on millions of working poor in this country. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2. Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask that the following article from the January 10 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record. Minimum Wage, Maximum Myth (By Steven Pearlstein) With Wall Street hot shots and corporate chiefs raking in obscene amounts of money, and with pay in the bottom half of the workforce barely keeping up with inflation, you'd think raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade would be a political and economic no-brainer for the new Democratic Congress. But you'd be forgetting about Max Baucus. Baucus is a Democratic senator from the Republican-leaning state of Montana, which means he is on the political equivalent of the endangered-species list. So you can understand Baucus's need to vote with his constituents on things like sugar subsidies and gun control and grazing fees on public lands. But while Baucus is surely entitled to his opinions, and entitled to do what is necessary to assure his own political survival, he is not entitled to be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which handles such key Democratic issues as health care, trade and tax policy. That position ought to be reserved for a statesman with enough political confidence and backbone that he isn't constantly sacrificing the interests of his party and his country to the narrow interests of his subsidy-addicted constituents. You'd think Baucus would have learned his lesson in 2001, when he won the enmity of Democrats everywhere by striking the deal that led to passage of the Bush tax cuts, including the phase-out of the estate tax. Apparently not. For on the very day the new Democratic House is set to push through a long-overdue minimum-wage increase, over in the Senate, Baucus has called a hearing on how to offset the ``economic hardship'' caused by the higher minimum wage with yet another round of business tax breaks. Consider, for a moment, the economic logic that lies behind Baucus's hearing this morning, when senators will hear from a panel of witnesses that includes Dave Ratner, owner of Dave's Soda & Pet City in Agawam, Mass. No doubt Ratner and the others will point out that workers making at or near the federal minimum wage are nearly all employed by small businesses. We will hear all the sob stories about how struggling small businesses with thin margins will be forced to cut back on hiring, pull back on expansion plans and, in some instances, close their doors. Moreover, this won't be a tragedy just for small-business owners and employees but for the economy as a whole, since everybody knows that small business creates virtually all new jobs. Only another round of tax breaks can keep the great American jobs machine humming. And here's the thing: Most of it is nonsense. To begin, both economic theory and history suggest that small business will, in time, pass on its increased costs to its consumers. Small businesses that pay low wages tend to compete with other small businesses that pay low wages, so they will all face the same cost pressures and respond in similar fashion. The worst that can be said is that a higher minimum wage will add, very modestly, to overall inflation. There is also general agreement among economists that a higher minimum wage, at the levels we are talking about, will have a minimal impact on adult employment. Slightly higher prices might reduce, slightly, the demand for Wendy's hamburgers, cheap hotel rooms and dog-walking services. But largely offsetting those effects will be the increased demand for goods and services by tens of millions of Americans who will finally be getting a raise. A higher minimum wage doesn't lower economic activity so much as rearrange it slightly. The biggest lie of all is that small businesses have created most of the new jobs in America. This canard, perpetrated by the small-business lobby and embraced by politicians of both parties, has been used for decades to justify all manner of special subsidies for small business. But as economist Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute reported in a paper last year, new jobs have been created by both large and small businesses in roughly the same proportion. In truth, the bulk of new jobs have always been created by a relatively small number of new firms that grow fast and get quite big--think of companies like Southwest Airlines, Google, CarMax. Most have little in common with the small- business lobby in Washington or fast-food restaurant chains or the members of the Kiwanis Club in Helena, Mont. As a rule, companies like these couldn't care less about the minimum wage or special tax breaks to offset it. Linking the minimum wage to small-business tax breaks is specious for other reasons, as well. During the last decade, when inflation-adjusted pay of minimum-wage workers was declining, tax rates for small businesses were also declining, thanks largely to the Bush cuts. If it is now imperative to reduce business taxes when the pay of minimum-wage workers is rising, you have to wonder if there will ever be a time when the small-business lobby thinks it doesn't deserve a tax cut. It's also worth noting that, according to the Internal Revenue Service, small-business owners, sole proprietors and the self-employed are, as a group, the biggest tax cheats in America, responsible for $153 billion of the estimated $345 billion tax gap in 2001. What these folks deserve are more frequent visits from IRS auditors, not more tax breaks. Real Democrats know that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do--economically, politically, morally. The question is why they have chosen a Senate Finance chairman who can't articulate that position without equivocation or apology even before the first vote is cast.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an important bill that will make America safer and more secure. Today's legislation ends years of gridlock by finally enacting recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission over two years ago. H.R. 1 will distribute homeland security grants based on risk, enhance nuclear non-proliferation, and improve education and economic development in Arab and Muslim countries. Under the Republican regime, I was never one to jump on the homeland security bandwagon as Congress passed meaningless resolutions intended to frighten and divide the American people, repeatedly and falsely claimed progress was being made in Iraq, and conducted no oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. In contrast, the Democratic Congress is already taking meaningful action to improve American security. H.R. 1 is short on rhetoric and long on reforms and tough new security requirements. The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act contains common sense, bipartisan ideas. Opponents may argue that this bill is too ambitious, but they won't find a single provision inserted merely to instigate a political fight. In the recent election, Democrats pledged to work across the aisle to pass substantive legislation that will affect the everyday lives of all Americans. This first bill meets that pledge. I urge my colleagues to heed the pleas of our constituents to stop posturing and start legislating by voting yes to make America more secure.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Today's legislation is a perfect example of the reckless priorities that voters rejected in giving Democrats control of both the House and Senate. Adding another $45 billion to the deficit is a fitting last act from Congressional Republicans. They've added trillions to the debt in the last 6 years and have no remorse about adding a few billion more on the way out the door. This bill destroys our environment with expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and though not in this bill, California is the next logical target. It expands school vouchers for Washington, D.C. as part of the Republican crusade to shift money to private and religious schools and undermine public education. On the healthcare front, this bill wastes a billion dollars on health savings accounts for the rich. It also expands the Medicare Advantage program, adding to the $5.2 billion in annual overpayments taxpayers already cough up to private insurers. I am glad that this bill includes a temporary update for physicians, giving us a little breathing room heading into next year. But we're still going to have to do some very heavy lifting in order to dig ourselves out of the $250 billion hole Republicans created by kicking the can down the road the last few years. In the next Congress, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle work with me to address this problem once and for all. Tax breaks for the rich and new oil for Cheney and the gang--looks like Republicans really won one for the Gipper today. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this fiscally irresponsible package and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in rejecting this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are apparently so concerned about the pain of unborn children that they are willing to promote junk science and have Congress dictate the contents of a brochure given to all women seeking to have an abortion. Where is the sense of urgency for children once they are actually born? What has this Congress done to address increasing rates of child poverty and hunger, decreasing access to health care, and the abysmal state of education and child care in this country? Inevitably, my Republican colleagues say it's a ``state issue'' or that there's not enough evidence that federal action would work. I guess this bill proves that if the issue is important enough to the Christian Right, federalism and evidence get tossed aside. If only the needs of children or the demands of voters had similar power to break through right wing ideology. This is a fitting end to the Congress that found the time to meddle with Terri Schiavo and vote against the fabricated war on Christmas but couldn't make time to finish nine appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, the jig is up on this pathetic excuse for governing. Let's begin a new direction for America by voting against this divisive bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, December 2006 marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Hayward Area Historical Society in Hayward, California. I rise to pay tribute to the Society's significant anniversary. On an autumn night in 1956, 25 Hayward Area residents met at Bret Harte School to discuss a growing concern in the community. Amidst the progress and prosperity of the post World War II boom, the history of the area once known as Eden Township seemed to be missing from the cultural landscape. The Hayward Chamber of Commerce Postwar Planning Committee first recommended the formation of a historical society in 1944. With so much happening at the conclusion of World War II and the community experiencing unprecedented growth in the following years, no action was taken on the committee's suggestion. However, 10 years later, the City of Hayward celebrated its 80th birthday with great fanfare. Though the festivities were considered a success, the planners had encountered a huge problem identifying pioneer residents to ride in the city's anniversary parade. There was no established resource for gathering and providing information on Hayward's past. The Community Services Committee of the Hayward Chamber of Commerce, chaired by Allen Strutz, decided to take matters into their hands and took steps to begin saving Hayward history. Soon, the Hayward Area Historical Society, HAHS, was born. The first official election of officers was scheduled for the night of December 6, 1956. Volunteers immediately began gathering members and asking pioneer families to fill out historical questionnaires. Those documents became the foundation for HAHS's extensive archives. During the ceremony to sign the Society's charter, which took place at the historic Eden Congregational Church, the Society proclaimed its intent to ``discover, preserve and disseminate knowledge of the history of the Hayward Area.'' Among the first artifacts to be donated was a pencil drawing of Mission Dolores and a copy of the Hayward Journal from 1894. HAHS has reached a number of benchmarks in growth and prosperity over the last fifty years. It has published numerous books, an ``Adobe Trails'' member newsletter, established a museum, a research library, and has amassed a collection of thousands of historical artifacts, self-produced exhibitions and has been a partner in restoring historical property in Hayward. As the Hayward Area Historical Society continues its progress, I join the community in wishing them a very happy 50th birthday and continued success.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Sheila Young upon her retirement as Mayor of the City of San Leandro, California. Mayor Young has served from 1998 to 2006 and is the only female mayor in the city's 135-year history to serve two complete terms of office. Mayor Young's distinguished public service is noteworthy. She served two terms as Chair of the Women Mayors of America within the U.S. Conference of Mayors Caucus, has represented all of the cities in Alameda County as a Director/Commissioner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and has served as President of the Alameda County Mayors Conference. In June 2006, she received the Distinguished Service Award from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. As the first elected Co-Chair of the Oakland Airport Noise Forum, Mayor Young served for 8 years and is currently Ambassador to the Forum working nationwide on issues of importance in aviation and community involvement. Mayor Young is actively involved as a speaker and expert in disaster preparedness for Alameda County. She is a charter member of Sundance Summit, a Mayor's Gathering on Climate Protection, and was a participant in the 2003 Jerusalem Conference of Mayors in Israel. Her other accomplishments during her exemplary tenure as mayor included the creation of the Mayor's Community Fund in San Leandro to assist nonprofit organizations as well as her oversight over the largest building period in the history of the city of San Leandro, including the development of the new Marina Auto Mall, the rebirth and rebuilding of Bayfair Center, the creation of the new U.S. Postal Service Distribution Center, as well as an increase in new quality housing. Mayor Young has received numerous awards and certificates for her outstanding contributions locally, statewide and nationally. She is engaged in a host of community and civic activities and is active on the speaker circuit sharing her knowledge about city government, environmental and transportation issues and public policy. A retirement event will be held in the Mayor's honor on January 19, 2007. I join the city, her friends, colleagues and admirers in thanking Sheila Young for her dedication and commitment. She leaves an indelible mark of positive change.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of the San Leandro, CA, Public Library. San Leandro's first free public library was established in January 1906 and was located at the old City Hall on Davis Street. On January 31, 1906, the Library Board of Trustees appointed Mary Brown as San Leandro's first official librarian. Her starting salary was $12.50 a month and she served as librarian from 1906 to 1938. In 1907, plans were made to construct a library building. Library Trustee Talcott P. Cary donated the 35-acre plot and wealthy steel magnate Andrew Carnegie donated $10,000 towards its construction. William H. Weeks, an architect famous for designing Carnegie libraries, was selected. The library's dedication ceremony was held on May 14, 1909. The old Carnegie library was demolished to make way for a new 1\1/2\- story library building. The architect was Francis Joseph McCarthy. The new library, dedicated on January 15, 1961, was over 44,660 square feet and had a capacity for 120,000 books. Its features included two garden courts, a lecture hall, several meeting rooms and an art studio. Retrofitting and renovation of the 1961 main library began in 1997. The library was expanded to a two-story building and 75,000 square feet. Its grand opening was on December 16, 2000 and showcased its impressive features, which include 75 public computers, an electronic learning center, lecture hall, art gallery, 6 meeting rooms as well as a gift shop, cafe and book store. There are currently over 219,000 books in the San Leandro Library's collection and the library serves an average of 50,000 patrons a month. I applaud the city of San Leandro and the administrators and staff of the San Leandro Public Library for their exemplary efforts to keep the library functioning with enhanced technology and outstanding patron services. Happy 100th birthday and best wishes for continued success.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Randal Michael Ulibarri, Chief of Police of the Union City, California Police Department. Chief Ulibarri is retiring after 30 years of exemplary service on the force. Chief Ulibarri grew up in Fremont and first worked at the Pacific States Steel Mill in Union City and joined the police department in 1976. As an officer, he served as a member of the Department's Specialized Enforcement Response Team (SERT) and held the positions of Detective and Field Training Officer. He rose through the ranks and was promoted to Sergeant on October 16, 1986. As a sergeant, Chief Ulibarri served as the SERT team leader. His other assignments included Personnel and Training Manager, Crime Prevention and Research Analysis Supervisor, and patrol watch commander. He is a graduate of the Herman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute. On October 25, 1995, Chief Ulibarri was promoted to lieutenant and was assigned as the SERT team commander and in addition was assigned to the Administrative Division and Field Operations Division. He is credited with developing and implementing the Community Policing Program for the Department. Chief Ulibarri was promoted to captain on December 15, 1997 and was responsible for administrative oversight over both the Support Services Division and the Field Operations Division. He attended the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia and graduated with the 192nd class. He is a member of the California Police Chief's Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. On July 20, 2000, Chief Ulibarri was promoted to the position of Chief of the Union City Police Department. During his long and distinguished career, two of his most noteworthy accomplishments are the development of the Volunteer Program and the Police Chaplain's Program. Chief Ulibarri's colleagues, friends, family and admirers will come together on January 13, 2007 to honor his illustrious career as he retires after years of dedicated law enforcement service. I join in thanking him for a job well done.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the First Chief of the Alameda County Fire Department, Bill McCammon. Chief McCammon is retiring after 28 years of exemplary service to the County of Alameda, California. The district and contract service areas that Chief McCammon serves are approximately 460 square miles with a population of over 250,000. He was born and raised in Oakland, California and received a B.S. degree in Agricultural Science and Management from the University of California at Davis. After completing his education, he sought a career in the fire service working first for the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department where he spent two years before moving to the San Leandro, California Fire Department. During his fourteen years in San Leandro, he held the ranks of Firefighter, Engineer, Captain, Battalion Chief, and Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal prior to becoming the Fire Chief. When Alameda County consolidated its unincorporated fire protection responsibilities into the Alameda County Fire Department, McCammon became the first Fire Chief of the newly formed department in 1993. The Department has doubled in size since 1993 with the addition of contracts for service with several local cities and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chief McCammon has introduced and implemented programs that include retrofitting and expansion of the public buildings and fire stations as well as new construction of several fire stations. He also implemented a water rescue, heavy rescue and HazMat Response Team that provides mutual aid to the entire County of Alameda and served as a key negotiator representing Alameda County for an ambulance contract for citywide services. An advocate of regionalization, Chief McCammon fostered and promoted the idea of creating a regional fire dispatch center within the County. Since its creation in 1999, six jurisdictions receive dispatch services from the center at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with countywide fire and emergency medical services mutual aid coordinated through the center. Chief McCammon's list of involvement addressing fire and emergency medical services issues at the local, state and national levels is impressive. He has served on numerous boards, commissions and associations, and has been appointed by several governors for leadership positions to address incident management, homeland security, fire service and other issues relevant to his expertise. On January 5, 2007, Fire Chief Bill McCammon's friends and family will gather at the Castlewood Country Club in Pleasanton, California to honor his achievements in his profession, to thank him for his years of dedicated service and to wish him well on his retirement. I am honored to recognize him on his special occasion.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Tony Daysog for his 10 years of faithful service to the city of Alameda, California as Councilmember and Vice Mayor. Mr. Daysog was first elected to the Alameda City Council on November 5, 1996 and served as a Councilmember from December 17, 1996 until December 1998. He served as Vice Mayor from December 2002 until December 2005. During his tenure, Tony Daysog served on numerous agencies, including the League of California Cities, the Airport Noise Operations Committee, the Alameda County Private Industry Council, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, and the Associated Community Action Program Government Board. He also has served as a member of the Economic Development Commission and was a member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority overseeing the redevelopment of the Alameda Naval Air Station. Mr. Daysog has been active in the preservation of the City of Alameda's neighborhoods and a strong advocate for the planning and safety of Alameda's communities. He aggressively championed traffic planning and is a strong advocate of mass transit. He brought forward the issue of bus zones, red curbs and access to transportation. He introduced the idea of domestic partners' eligibility for property transfer tax exemptions and the requirement for a competitive bid process for all bonds and debt issued by the city of Alameda. During his 10 years as a member of the Alameda City Council, Mr. Daysog never missed a regularly scheduled Council meeting. On December 19, 2006, the City will express its appreciation for Tony Daysog's exemplary commitment for the benefit of the City of Alameda. I join the City in thanking Mr. Daysog for his years of service and wish him every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Anmol Singh Mahal, who has been named president of the California Medical Association (CMA). He is the first person of Indian origin to head the 35,000-member organization. Dr. Mahal is a board-certified internist in solo practice in gastroenterology and internal medicine in Fremont, California. He came to the United States 33 years ago after receiving his medical degree from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, India. He completed his internship in internal medicine at the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey and completed a fellowship in gastroenterology at the Stanford University Medical Center. He is a founding member and past president of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin of Northern California. Prior to being named President of the California Medical Association, Dr. Mahal served one term as the Chair of the CMA Board of Trustees and two terms as Vice Chair. He has been a member of the CMA Board since 1997 and is a commissioner for the state Emergency Medical Services Commission. Dr. Mahal has served CMA on multiple committees including Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee on Culturally and Linguistically Competent Physicians, and as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee on Minority Physician Issues. He is currently a member of CMA's Committee on the Medical Board of California, and the Ethnic Medical Organization Section Executive Board. In addition to his activities at the state and local levels, Dr. Mahal has served as Chief of Staff of the Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California and a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Outpatient Surgery Center in Fremont. He is a Diplomat of the American Board of Internal Medicine. I join Dr. Mahal's colleagues, friends and admirers in wishing him every success as he takes the helm of leadership as President of the California Medical Association.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (H.R. 5441) because $35 billion is too high a price for failure. Hurricane Katrina provided a vivid and massive example of DHS' incompetence, but additional instances of incompetence are on almost daily display. Just this week, Secretary Chertoff announced with great fanfare a new risk-based port security program. Perhaps he knows something about the terrorists that we don't, because apparently they are more likely to target the ports in Burns Harbor, IN and Duluth, MN than Oakland, CA. Those ports received new funding while Oakland got nothing. The fourth-busiest port in the nation, the gateway to Asia, in the heart of a major metropolitan center and the high-technology headquarters of the country is apparently at no risk of a terrorist attack. Another recent round of urban security grants cut funding by 40 percent for New York and Washington, DC, but increased it for Louisville and Omaha. The American people might also be interested to know that DHS' ``National Asset Database,'' which is used to determine how to allocate preparedness funding, lists Indiana as the state with the most potential terrorist targets. Supposedly, the Hoosier state has 8,591 targets compared to California's 3,212. The Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne, IN is on the list, but the Empire State Building is not. I couldn't make this stuff up. The more DHS promises to improve and stop wasting money, the worse things get. Last year, more than half of contracts were awarded without a full competitive bidding process, compared to 19 percent in 2003. If it seems to you like the Katrina recovery is going awfully slow for how much money has been spent, perhaps you aren't considering the 2,000 sets of dog booties costing $68,442; three portable shower units for $71,170; 54 iPods worth $7,000; 37 designer rain jackets for a Customs and Border Protection firing range that isn't used when it is raining; and a beer brewing kit for $1,000 purchased by DHS staff. This Homeland Security Appropriations bill does nothing to require stronger oversight or to stop the hemorrhaging of money to our least- vulnerable areas. The popcorn factory and petting zoo lobby will be happy, but I am disgusted, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the march to war with Iran. I am as concerned as the authors and supporters of this bill about Iran's nuclear weapons program. But I do not believe that levying additional sanctions and encouraging regime change is the correct course. Instead, we should work with our allies to negotiate a diplomatic solution. The ``Iran Freedom Support Act'', H.R. 6198, will antagonize Iran's government. Provisions calling for democracy promotion and ``the exercise of self-determination'' will be interpreted as a direct assault on Iran's sovereignty and may prompt Iran to discontinue ongoing negotiations. Unilateral sanctions may also discourage France, Germany, Italy, and Spain from working to broker an international agreement. Our allies do not appreciate it when we ``go it alone.'' Dissidents will also be hurt by our offer of financial and political assistance. As in Iraq, individuals and groups that ally with America will see their integrity questioned and their reputations for independence undermined. Iranian families will be hurt by sanctions that prohibit foreign investment in the country's petroleum industries. Sanctions already in place have not impacted Iran's behavior. Why would new prohibitions on investment succeed where old sanctions have failed? Finally, the American people will be less secure. Antagonizing Iran will not stop or even slow nuclear weapons development. Instead, sanctions will prompt Iran to redouble its efforts as a means of saving domestic and international face. The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have already made a mess of Iraq and allowed warlords to gain control of much of Afghanistan's countryside. This legislation takes us a step closer to similar results in Iran. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825) because I swore to uphold the Constitution and I will not vote to provide exceptions to it. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' In other words, you have to get a warrant any time you spy on an American. That is the entire text of the Amendment. It doesn't say ``unless President Bush thinks the person is a terrorist,'' ``except in cases where it's inconvenient to file the paperwork,'' or even ``with limitations as defined by Congress.'' Realizing the urgent nature of some national security investigations, federal law permits wiretaps without warrants in emergencies as long as court approval is obtained within three days. If the surveillance involves only communications of agents of foreign powers, the government can conduct warrantless surveillance for up to a year. These warrants are not difficult to obtain. Since 1978, when the law was enacted, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court has approved more than 18,000 national security warrants. Only five have been turned down. But current law isn't good enough for the President. He wants to do what he wants, when he wants, without telling anyone. This President violated the Constitution. Rather than hold him accountable, we are going to approve of his despotic behavior. Under this legislation, the President can conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans any time he declares there is an ``imminent threat'' likely to cause death or widespread harm. Good luck finding a time when this President, or any President for that matter, doesn't claim there's an imminent threat. Mr. Speaker, in this Congress alone, you have attempted to close the halls of justice to detainees, gun victims, religious minorities, fast food consumers, asylum-seekers, injured patients, and now, anyone spied on by their own government. We've gone from a nation of laws to a nation of exceptions. Unless my colleagues want a nation of, by, and for the Protestant, thin, suspicionless white male, I urge them to join me in voting no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 20th anniversary of the Family Emergency Shelter Coalition (FESCO) in Hayward, California. In 1986 a group of Eden Area churches and businesses came together, through their mutual concern for homeless families, to form FESCO. FESCO incorporated in 1986 and in 1987 purchased and rehabilitated a 2,200 square foot two-story house (built in 1917) near downtown Hayward and began serving homeless families in 1998. The shelter, later named Les Marquis House, accommodates eight to ten families at a time, with most staying an average of forty-two days before moving into permanent housing. Over time programs have been developed at FESCO to compliment their provision of basic food, shelter and clothing. FESCO's professional counseling, life skills training, children's programs, resettlement, employment and housing services have all been structured to meet the needs of homeless families to enable them to become self-sufficient. Volunteers also play a vital role in providing services to families at FESCO. They provide moral support, and donate their time and resources for fundraising activities and assistance with programs, such as Aftercare. Aftercare programs include Back-to-School backpack distribution, Thanksgiving food boxes, and a Holiday Adopt-a-Family program. Many in- kind donations from individuals and corporate donors support the Aftercare program. In 1999, 3rd Street Transitional Housing, a four-unit apartment next door to the Shelter, opened to serve 4 families for longer-term stays of eighteen to twenty-four months. This facility provides independent living with a professional counseling safety net. In 2002, FESCO purchased, rebuilt and opened an 8 unit transitional co-housing facility. Banyan House provides food, shelter and services for eight families with stays from six to ten months while they prepare for self-sufficiency. Today, twenty-nine churches and a host of businesses are part of a community partnership contributing to FESCO's successful delivery of services. Eighty-five to one hundred families receive services from FESCO each year and approximately two hundred families are active in their Aftercare program. As FESCO celebrates twenty years of exemplary service, they continue to plan for the future. They are committed to providing encouragement, hope and a belief in the future for homeless families. Congratulations FESCO on your milestone anniversary and thank you for making a positive difference in our community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, Barbara Lee, to pay tribute to La Clinica de La Raza on its 35th anniversary of providing exemplary health care to the East Bay communities of Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties in Northern California. The mission of La Clinica de La Raza is to improve the quality of life of the diverse communities they serve by providing culturally appropriate, high quality, accessible health care for all. Before La Clinica de La Raza was established, low-income residents in the East Bay of Northern California had few options available to them for affordable health care. As a result, many were forced to go to hospital emergency rooms for problems that could have been avoided with preventive care. In response to this need for primary care services, a group of concerned health practitioners, community activists and students came together in 1971 to establish a multiservice clinic, in Oakland, California, based on the expressed needs of the community. La Clinica offers low cost quality health care services for multilingual and multicultural populations at 22 locations in three counties in Northern California. The majority of La Clinica's patients earn far below the federal poverty level and most lack private health insurance. La Clinica's comprehensive services include pediatrics, chronic disease management, family medicine, health education, women's health care, adolescent services, school-based clinics, mental health services, dental and vision care, and tattoo removal as well as pharmacy, laboratory and x-ray services. To most effectively serve the diverse community, La Clinica's health practitioners come from the cultures and communities of the patients they serve. The practitioners speak a myriad of languages fluently including Spanish, English, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic and Amharic. More than 72 percent of La Clinica's patients require services in their native languages. Since its founding in 1971, La Clinica has served hundred of thousands of individuals with a variety of health care services. Infants, children, expectant mothers, teens, seniors and families have benefited from these multi-service clinics. The number of people needing La Clinica's services continues to grow. The organization saw a 68 percent increase in patients from 1998-2004. In 2005 alone, La Clinica provided more than 175,000 patient visits. More than half of these visits were for children and adolescents. Since 1990, La Clinica grew from 8 to 22 health care sites. One of these sites is scheduled for expansion in 2007 and is expected to double in operational capacity. Congresswoman Lee and I salute La Clinica de La Raza's remarkable past, accomplishments and vision for the future.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend American values. The Military Commissions Act--H.R. 6166--continues Republicans' despotic assault on the Constitution. It denies detainees held abroad the fundamental right of habeas corpus, which has for centuries protected against unjust government imprisonment. It limits protections against detainee mistreatment, sanctioning ``alternative procedures'' of interrogation that amount to cruel and unusual punishment. It denies people the opportunity to confront the evidence used against them--even if that evidence is obtained through coercive and inhumane practices. It strips our courts of the jurisdiction to review cases--including those already pending--concerning detainee abuse. Some call this legislation a ``compromise.'' I call it a capitulation. No sooner had the ink dried on this deal than the Bush administration declared that the CIA's program of secret detention and interrogation could and would continue. That should come as no surprise. Though this bill does not explicitly redefine our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, it permits the President to ``interpret the meaning and application'' of our historic commitment to the international community--and theirs to us. Make no mistake, our disregard for international law imperils the safety and security of our men and women in uniform. Our denial of due process to detainees invites foreign states and organizations to indefinitely imprison and interrogate our soldiers. Our insistence on defining detainees as ``enemy combatants'' undeserving of legal protections encourages our adversaries to deny these very same protections to American prisoners. Provided, of course, we haven't already done so ourselves: This legislation allows the Government to declare not only foreigners, but also U.S. citizens, ``enemy combatants'' and arrest and hold them indefinitely. This legislation further confirms that Republicans in Congress are no more interested in fundamental human rights than is President Bush and his administration. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, our Nation and especially our great State of California, lost part of our soul last week. Thousands of historians have written about American history, but it took J.S. Holliday to analyze, understand, define and describe the monumental effect on our State and Nation of the California Gold Rush. In authoring the two classic histories about the Gold Rush--The World Rushed In (1981) followed by Rush to Riches (1999)--Jim Holliday captured the spirit, the human face and the meaning of what he defined as the seminal event that changed the American West and indeed all of America. He described recklessness, entrepreneurship, resourcefulness, greed, speculation, ambition and thrill, and how gold abolished all the old rules. He explained dry diggers and long toms and sluice boxes and ditching and tailing, and he opened our eyes to life on the Yuba River and Sutter's Mill and Marysville. His meticulous research exposed the life of the miner and through him, the culture of the time and the impact of it all on us, as Californians and Americans. Beyond being a great historian and a great writer, Jim Holliday was a great friend. The decibel level of his voice was not the only thing that ensured he was a presence in the room; his laughter, his warmth, his passion to learn and capacity to listen, and his sheer brainpower, made him the center of gravity in any setting. He was as irrepressible and dynamic as they come. On behalf of the members of the California delegation--both those who knew him personally and those who knew only his work--I send condolences to all members of his family. Mr. Speaker, I ask that obituaries from the San Francisco Chronicle of September 2 and the Carmel Pine Cone of September 8 be printed in the Record. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 2, 2006] J.S. Holliday: 1924-2006 (By Carl Nolte) J.S. Holliday, one of the most eminent historians of California and the West, died at his home in Carmel on Thursday at the age of 82. He had been suffering from pulmonary fibrosis. Holliday was the author of ``The World Rushed In,'' a history of the California Gold Rush that was a best-seller when it was published in 1981; it went through 13 printings, and a new edition was reissued recently by the University of Oklahoma Press. Kevin Starr, another noted historian of the West, called ``The World Rushed In'' ``a classic.'' If it were only for the one book, Holliday's reputation as a historian would be secure, but he was also the founding director of the Oakland Museum of California and executive director emeritus of the California Historical Society, taught history at San Francisco State University, and served for a time as assistant director of the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley. He also lectured, appeared on television and wrote articles on history. ``No one writes better about California's irresistible past,'' said Ken Burns, the television documentary expert. ``I am a huge fan.'' ``He was a towering figure in California history,'' said Gary Kurutz, principal librarian for special collections at the California State Library. ``His death is a real loss.'' Holliday was born Jaquelin Smith Holliday II, June 10, 1924, in Indianapolis. His family was in the steel business, and young J.S. Holliday attended private schools. He seldom used his given name. His friends called him ``Jim.'' Holliday attended midshipman school at Northwestern University during World War II and served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard an escort aircraft carrier in the Pacific. He attended Yale University and graduated with a degree in history in 1948. At Yale, one of his teachers brought to his attention letters and a diary written by a man named William Swain, who set out from Michigan in 1849 with a group of adventurers called the Wolverine Rangers to make his fortune in far-off California. In Swain, Holliday found his own mother lode. Swain's letters and diary--his adventures traveling across the Great Plains, down the dreary Humboldt River in Nevada, his trek across the Black Rock Desert, his life in the California Gold Country--were the basis for ``The World Rushed In.'' Holliday often said that the story of the Gold Rush--which he said was the greatest peacetime mass migration in history--brought him to California. He moved West in 1949, on the 100th anniversary of the Gold Rush. ``I came here for gold and found other ways of seeking success in California,'' he said. He got a doctorate in history from UC Berkeley in 1958 and a research fellowship at the Huntington Library, then worked at the Bancroft and taught at San Francisco State. By then he had a considerable reputation as a forceful and vigorous exponent of his views of history. ``He was one of the most vital people I ever knew,'' said Joe Illick, who served with him on the faculty at San Francisco State. He was ``a big, handsome, rumpled man with a passion for the rugged life,'' The Chronicle said of him when he had become well known. Early in his career, however, Holliday's passion for history did not always go down well with more sedate custodians of the State's past. In 1967, he was named the founding director of what later became the much-praised Oakland Museum of California. However, he was so forceful and uncompromising in his views that he was fired just before the museum opened in 1969. He then became executive director of the California Historical Society and organized a series of major traveling exhibitions, including one about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. ``It caused quite a stir,'' said David Crossen, the current executive director of the society. ``People in historical societies didn't deal with issues like that back then. He was a model for the young Turks in historical organizations.'' Holliday served two terms in the top job at the California Historical Society. However, he always came back to the Gold Rush book. He felt the 1849 Gold Rush was a seminal event in the state's history that, in his words, ``changed California, changed the whole West and changed America's sense of itself.'' He wanted to present it in human terms, to make the lives of the long-dead Forty-Niners come alive. It took him 30 years to write. ``He was such a careful writer that it sometimes took him a week to get two paragraphs right,'' said Kurutz. ``He was as thorough as can be.'' The result was what Starr called ``a masterly narrative.'' The book won the Silver Medal of the Commonwealth Club of California and the Oscar Lewis Award for Achievement in Western History from the Book Club of California. In 1999, Holliday wrote ``Rush for Riches: Gold Fever and the Making of California,'' which also received critical acclaim. Holliday was married twice. His first marriage, to Nancy Adams, ended in divorce. He was married to Belinda Vidor Jones in 1983, and she survives him. He also leaves three children: Timothy Holliday of New Orleans, Martha Brett Holliday of Farmington, Conn., and W.J. Holliday of Menlo Park. A memorial service is pending. [From the Carmel Pine Cone, Sept. 8, 2006] Gold Rush Historian, CRA Founder Was an ``Oversized Slice of Life'' (By Mary Brownfield) ``He was a very forceful and outspoken person, but also very sensitive and very gentle, too,'' John Hicks said of his friend, Jim Holliday, the notable California historian and author who died of pulmonary fibrosis at home in Carmel last Thursday morning at the age of 82. ``That made for an interesting paradox, I think.'' Mr. Holliday, who helped found the Carmel Residents Association after Clint Eastwood was elected mayor of the town 20 years ago and was named the group's Citizen of the Year in 2001, was best known for his books and studies on the California Gold Rush. In 1981, Simon & Schuster published ``The World Rushed In,'' which described the Gold Rush and its impacts on California's development and American values. The book, heralded by fellow historians, underwent 13 printings. Its latest edition, published by the University of Oklahoma Press, remains available. In 1999, assisted by Hicks, he wrote ``Rush for Riches: Gold Fever and the Making of California,'' copublished by the Oakland Museum and the University of California Press in Berkeley. His writing earned honors from the Library of Congress, the Commonwealth Club of California (silver medal), the Book Club of California and Western Writers of America, Inc. Known as a strong speaker, Mr. Holliday lectured throughout the State and Nation. In Carmel, Hicks and Mr. Holliday served on the board of trustees at Tor House. Hicks described his friend as a ``big, vigorous person, but endlessly curious and a great listener,'' and said they agreed on the local and national significance of Robinson Jeffers and his historic home on the point. ``He was a big, oversized slice of life and more than some people could take at times, but he was a good spirit,'' Hicks said. ``The little town will be different without him.'' Attorney and CRA cofounder Skip Lloyd first met Mr. Holliday in San Francisco, and the two became reacquainted years later when Mr. Holliday moved to Carmel. Lloyd also lauded his friend's public speaking skills and said, ``He brought tremendous enthusiasm, energy, generosity, leadership and a wonderful spirit'' to the residents group. ``He was a really accomplished person, but he never wore it on his sleeve,'' Lloyd said. ``He was always friendly, helpful and generous to everybody.'' Historian and longtime San Francisco Chronicle journalist Carl Nolte, who wrote Mr. Holliday's obituary for his newspaper, read Mr. Holliday's books ``with much admiration'' and described the author as ``a charmer.'' ``He was very, very impressive as an historian,'' Nolte said, ``and also very kind with his praise, which is rare among authors.'' Born Jaquelin Smith Holliday II, on June 10, 1924, to steel magnate William J. Holliday and Martha Henley Holliday in Indianapolis, IN, Mr. Holliday was most commonly known as J.S.--Jim to his friends. He graduated from the Hill School in Pottstown, PA, attended midshipman school at Northwestern University and served on the USS Santee in the Pacific during World War II. Mr. Holliday graduated from Yale University with a degree in history in 1948. Drawn west, he undertook graduate studies in history at UC Berkeley in 1952 and received his Ph.D. in 1959, following a year as a research fellow at the Henry Huntington Library in San Marino. He also worked as an associate professor at San Francisco State University and a lecturer at other institutions. He was editor of ``American West'' magazine and served as executive director of the Oakland Museum of California. From 1970-1977 and 1983-1985, he was director of the California Historical Society. Socially, Mr. Holliday belonged to the Bohemi-an and Roxburge clubs in San Francisco, and the Zamorano Club in Los Angeles. His first marriage, to Nancy Adams, ended in divorce in 1974, and he married Carmel resident Belinda Vidor Jones in 1983. She and three children from his first marriage--Timothy Holliday of New Orleans, LA, Martha Brett Holliday of Farmington, CT, and William J. Holliday of Menlo Park-- survive him.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together to produce this important legislation. I would like to especially thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Herger, Chairman of our Human Resources subcommittee, and the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott, Ranking Member on our subcommittee, for their work in guiding this bill through and reaching a compromise with our Senate counterparts. This bill is an important, although by no means final, step toward improving our child welfare system and providing hope and a bright future to the 800,000 children that spend time in foster care each year. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. For far too long many foster children and abused children have suffered because their caseworkers are underpaid, overworked, and turnover frequently. A 2003 GAO report concluded that frontline caseworkers should not handle more than 18 cases at a time. Yet data collected by the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) showed that caseworkers around the country handle an average of 24-31 cases simultaneously. The GAO also found that the average tenure of caseworkers was less than 2 years. There is a direct relationship between positive outcomes for foster children and the frequency and quality of their interaction with their caseworkers. The more frequent the visits, the safer children are and the better chance they have of gaining permanency. Improving states' abilities to recruit, train, and retain highly skilled caseworkers is one concrete way to help our most vulnerable children. This bill includes $95 million in funding over 6 years for workforce improvements with the goal of ensuring that 90 percent of foster children are visited by their caseworker at least once a month. This funding is a great first step and one worthy of applause. Mr. Herger and Dr. McDermott showed tremendous leadership in reaching a compromise with the Senate that maintained funding for caseworker improvement. However, we should not expect that such a relatively small amount of money will transform a troubled system overnight. There is more that we must do in this and other areas to bring about positive changes for foster children. Fixing our child welfare system has repercussions throughout our society. Foster children who age out of the child welfare system without having developed family supports or skills that can lead to employment create a large societal cost. Consider that a 1999 GAO report found that 40 percent of adults who had aged out of foster care were dependent on public assistance or Medicaid. 51 percent were unemployed; 25 percent had experienced homelessness; 27 percent of males had been incarcerated at least once. In the next 15 years 300,000 foster children will age out of care without any transition supports. This body has a moral obligation to do all we can to confront these sad realities. Even as I celebrate the progress that the bill before us today represents, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the next step and implement changes that will provide support for children transitioning out of foster care. One such change would be to eliminate the scandalous state practice of robbing foster children of their social security benefits. Nearly every state in the nation confiscates foster children's disability and survivor's benefits when those children are under the responsibility of the state. If this practice were prohibited, foster children could use the money that rightly belongs to them for job training, housing, and transportation expenses. These funds would ease foster children's transition to adulthood and provide them with hope for the future. I urge you to support the bill before us, but please remember that we still have work to do.

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I support 3525 and urge my colleagues to support it. I thank Mr. Herger and Dr. McDermott for their work in guiding this bill through committee and maintaining funding for case worker improvements and home visits. The gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned that she had been on the committee. I have actually been on the committee since the day it was organized in 1975. And the work we are doing here today, led by our chairman, reminds me of much of the bipartisan improvements that have been brought to the support systems for disadvantaged people and children. There is a lot more to do. There are 800,000 kids who spend time in foster care each year, and the people who provided case work support are understaffed, underpaid, overworked. This bill will go a good ways toward helping them. In the last report that we had from GAO, we found that in 1999, of the children who aged out, turned 19, out of foster care, that 40 percent of them became dependent on public assistance and Medicaid. Fifty-one percent were unemployed. Twenty-five percent had spent some time homeless. Twenty-seven percent of the males had been incarcerated at least once. In the next 15 years we are going to have 300,000 or more foster kids age out, without any transition support. So now I hope that the chairman will join with me and the ranking member as we proceed to see what we can do to make that transition, provide support during those periods of transition so that the foster kids can enter the adult world and become independent and supportive members of society as I know the Chair would like. I would like to mention one issue, and see if I could indulge the chairman in a brief dialogue on this. There is a practice that just became apparent to us that the Social Security benefits which some of the foster children get, either because they are disabled or their parents have died, they get a Social Security benefit, a small one. That benefit in almost all States is taken by the States. If the children had a parent alive, that benefit could very well be saved for these children, and when they age out of foster care, could be used for college education, job training, perhaps to buy a car so they could get to their job. And I hope that the Chair would join with me so that we can study the possibility of finding a way to save those Social Security benefits for those children who would not have a parent or would be disabled, so that it will help them in their transition to a responsible adulthood. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act, and H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act. Only in the backward world of Republican campaign strategy would passing more ineffective bills be seen as a way to highlight ``progress'' on illegal immigration. I hope that the American people ask what happened to the massive immigration bill that the House passed in December. I hope they question why House Republicans are today spending time debating three bills they know the Senate will never consider. The truth is that Republicans aren't interested in stopping illegal immigration. If they were, they'd crack down on employers. Or at least make an effort to resolve differences with their colleagues in the Senate. If you define progress by anything other than fear-mongering rhetoric, then this Congress is no more likely to secure the border than the Capitol Police are to stop an armed intruder. Because this Republican Congress long ago abandoned the idea of purposeful governing, they slapped together these three immigration bills without concern for constitutionality or feasibility. No bad idea from a backbench right-winger was too extreme. If these bills became law: Immigrants could be indefinitely detained at the whim of the Department of Homeland Security. Hey, it hasn't worked at Guantanamo, but why not try it on U.S. soil? The Attorney General could order immediate deportation of anyone deemed to be a member of a designated street gang, regardless of whether members had committed crimes. In other words, hanging around the wrong crowd, at least in the eyes of Alberto Gonzales, would be a deportable offense. Federal courts hearing immigration cases would be instructed that any relief granted to immigrants would have to be the ``minimum necessary'' and ``least intrusive'' to government agencies. So if the government wrongly jailed you for 20 years, you might get released, but don't expect any compensation for the loss of your livelihood. They say that desperate times call for desperate measures, and the Republican Party is clearly desperate to cling to power. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the wrongly entitled Federal Election Integrity Act. Like so many Republican window dressings, this bill might seem like a no-brainer to some. Only citizens can vote, so why not have them show their ID and prove their address and citizenship to reduce fraud? If only the real world were as simple as country club Republicans imagine. What about students whose driver's licenses show their home address but who register to vote on campus? Nursing home residents who have been voting for over 50 years but whose documents are nowhere to be found? Low-income Americans who don't drive and have never had a state- issued identification? It's no coincidence that the people who will be disenfranchised by this bill are core Democratic constituencies. Powerful interests have figured out that there are lots of ways to institute a poll tax by another name. What about reducing voter fraud, something we all support? It will come as no surprise to anyone who has run for office or worked in campaigns that there is little evidence of fraudulent voting. It's hard enough to convince most registered voters to go to the polls. What is the incentive to engage in voter fraud, a felony offense? In particular, there is little incentive for immigrants--against whom this legislation is targeted--to vote illegally. Voter fraud by immigrants is subject to immediate deportation without appeal. Do the sponsors of this bill really believe that thousands, or even tens, of immigrants would risk deportation to cast a single vote? If anything shatters confidence in our election system, it is the thousands of votes that are not counted because of dimpled chads, electronic voting breakdowns, provisional ballot mishaps, three-hour lines at polling places, and the like. The Help America Vote Act, which was supposed to address some of these problems, has never been fully funded or enforced, and yet the Republican Majority wants to further restrict voting and create a new administrative nightmare for our states and localities. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, so that all Americans might have the opportunity to cast their vote in November against this desperate cling to power.