Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reject all the ridiculous premises of the resolution: The premise that terrorists would have had no clue that international wire transfers would be subject to monitoring until they read about it in the New York Times; the premise that the media should conceal information leaked by responsible officials who are concerned about the runaway police-state tactics of the Bush Administration; and, the premise that by telling a select few Congressional leaders, the Bush Administration can do whatever it wants, regardless of the lack of constitutional or statutory authority. When concerns were expressed about the far-reaching powers of the Patriot Act, President Bush said any wiretap would require a court order. He lied. When the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program was revealed, he said we should trust him to use the program judiciously. When we learned that the NSA also collects millions of domestic telephone records, the President said it wasn't what it seemed. Now, we add financial records to the list, and his only response is to criticize the messenger. What will it take for the do- nothing Republican Congress to start standing up for the Constitution, or at least the prerogatives of the Legislative Branch? If this Congress spent half as much time doing oversight as it did criticizing those who dare question their government, we wouldn't have to find out what our government is doing on the front page of the New York Times. But given that no lie, no unlawful program, no petulant signing statement is too much for the Bush toadies, I salute the Times and other media outlets for their occasional bravery and for maintaining some semblance of accountability in government.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I appreciate his usual tenacity in watch-dogging the Federal dollar. I would apologize. On our side of the aisle, the whip notice had it incorrect as it came out this morning. The gentleman is correct. It has been corrected. The distinguished gentleman from Indiana has seen that the amendment is limited to the notification, and I think it will assuage concerns. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STARK. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I would like to associate myself with his remarks. In my community, this came to my attention several years back when 3 or 4,000 households in two different cities received notification just 45 days before the insurance bill was due from their mortgage companies and were told that within 45 days they would have to pay between $1,000 and $2,000 in insurance. In both communities, half of the households were excluded, but each household had to go individually, perhaps at a cost of $1,000 to $2,000 a household. That was a million to $2 million without even hiring lawyers or surveyors in my district to relieve themselves from this onerous, unneeded insurance premium. We can send a million letters for less than $400,000 if that became necessary. It is a question of timely notification. I think it is only fair for us to notify the individual property owners, to give them time to be able to get the surveys and get the information they needed before they have to pay up the first thousand or $2,000 in premium and then later try and escape from under this, if their property is excludable, from the floodplain. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding and for his work on this issue. This first came to my attention back in 2000 when flood maps were updated in Alameda County in the 13th Congressional District. Thousands of residents in San Leandro and Fremont found out that they were added to a floodplain by getting a letter from their lender. They had 45 days to select a policy and pay the annual premium or the lender would choose for them and add it to their monthly payment. There was no explanation of what had suddenly determined them to be in a floodplain and the community appeal window was already closed. Needless to say, the National Flood Insurance Program ranks somewhere just above the IRS in popularity in my district. Considering the ongoing nationwide map modernization program and the new FEMA requirement to assume houses behind levees require flood insurance unless the levees are certified, this problem will affect almost every congressional district in the country, if it hasn't already. The logic of the Burton/Stark amendment is simple. Translating flood maps into on-the-ground information about households is already happening, but often only in time to send the first bill for flood insurance. Our amendment merely changes the timeline to guarantee that property owners will find out earlier in the process when there is still time to get involved and appeal as a community. In my district, more than half of the households added to the floodplain were later taken out. If they could have done so as a group rather than individually appealing and hiring their own surveyors, it would have saved both time and money, not to mention the reputation of the flood insurance program. I urge my colleagues to support the Burton/Stark amendment. All our constituents deserve to be kept informed about federal requirements that directly impact their pocketbooks. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to yet another tax break for the ultra-wealthy. This week, Republicans rejected an increase in the minimum wage that would have enabled people making $5.15 an hour to receive a $2 raise. Yet today they're falling all over themselves to give every single person worth more than $20 million a $5.6 million tax break. A cartoonist couldn't draw a clearer illustration of the Republicans' misguided priorities. Though 46 million Americans lack health insurance and millions of children are denied access to quality education, Republicans insist on enriching those who least need our assistance. It is irresponsible and immoral to decrease revenue by $800 billion. With this money, we could provide quality health care for every man, woman and child; make the dream of affordable college a reality for all those who can't now afford higher education; or fund groundbreaking scientific research. It took us less than a decade to go to the moon. With a similar effort, we might cure AIDS or cancer. The Republican priorities are clear: $5.6 million for each of their rich campaign donors and $0 for hard working stiffs trying to raise a family on $5.15 an hour. The Republicans are bowing down to 18 super-wealthy families who have spent nearly $500 million lobbying for estate tax repeal. These families own everything from Amway to Wal-Mart and stand to gain billions of dollars from any so-called compromise. Another quite wealthy man has a different view. Bill Gates, Sr., recently said: ``Given the fact that we have an unacceptable deficit, undeniable and huge demands resulting from our foreign involvement, and tragedies occurring here at home that need support from the federal government, it seems just plain irresponsible to talk about dismissing this particular source of federal revenue.'' I couldn't say it any better myself, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to yet another bloated Defense Appropriations bill. H.R. 5631 provides billions more for missile defense systems that are nothing but a pipe dream and a War in Iraq that has turned into an international nightmare. Republicans in Congress should wake up and smell the coffee. Another $9 billion for development of ineffective and outdated weapons systems may boost the bottom lines of their well-connected sugar daddies in the defense industry. But throwing good money after bad will do little to make Ronald Reagan's Cold War fantasy a reality. Despite nearly $100 billion in research, these systems have yet to demonstrate even a basic ability to intercept incoming missiles. Even if they could, they'd do little to make us secure from the much more likely and contemporary threat of a weapon delivered by suitcase or cargo container. Republicans have irresponsibly funded the majority of their misguided Iraqi adventure through supplementals. But they couldn't resist also including tens of billions more in today's Defense Appropriations bill. In H.R. 5631, taxpayer money is appropriated as a so-called ``bridge fund'' for the first six months of war operations during fiscal year 2007. But our troops should be brought home immediately. The bill's billions are, in reality, a bridge to more death and destruction. The United States' continued occupation encourages Iraqi civil war and feeds the insurgency, providing terrorists with refuge and recruits. Once upon a time, Congress took its oversight role seriously. Not today. Despite a recent Pentagon report that found significant cost overruns in 36 major weapons systems, this bill increases defense spending by a whopping $19.1 billion. As a result, defense spending will now total more than half of the entire federal discretionary budget! Instead, we should provide quality education and health care to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no to additional spending on ineffective missile systems and a counterproductive war.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this simple- minded resolution. President Bush and Republicans in Congress would have you believe that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one and the same. But terrorism is not exclusive to a geographic or political entity. Terrorism is the result of an accidental or intentional trauma inflicted on humanity. Numerous examples exist within our own borders. My son is terrorized by the threat of destruction posed by the ignorance, of President Bush in his steadfast opposition to addressing the very real threat of global warming. Parents are terrorized by the lack of treatment for children born with diabetes, leukemia, and multiple sclerosis. Yet right-wing evangelical Pharisees dictate prohibitions on stem cell research that could cure these and other diseases, saving lives. Middle-class Americans are terrorized by the outsourcing of jobs. elimination of pensions and health benefits, and expansion of predatory lending. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce promotes these terrifying practices, driving working families to fear for their financial future. All Americans are terrorized by more than 30,000 handgun deaths each year. This trauma is condoned and promoted by the National Rifle Association, a bipartisan terrorist organization. Our brave servicemen and women in uniform are terrorized by the Iraqi insurgency and civil war. Though 2,500 American soldiers and countless Iraqi citizens have died, the right wing noise machine encourages additional deaths by coloring as pro-terrorist those of us who dare to acknowledge the futility of the President's War in Iraq. Terrorism is a very real threat, but it comes in many forms other than those found in Iraq and, as I've outlined here today, we are doing precious little to combat it in America. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to join me in a call to redirect our attention, our federal dollars, and our lives to our needs here at home.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as dean of the California delegation, it is my distinct honor at this point to yield to the senior member of the Republican California delegation, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, when is enough, enough? I rise in opposition to H.R. 4939 because there is no limit to the amount of money Republicans are willing to spend on this counterproductive war in Iraq. When the Bush administration beat the drums of war, it promised the American people that the total cost would be $50 billion. More than 3 years later, the price tag for the Iraqi civil war stands at more than $320 billion. Before the invasion, neoconservatives told us Iraq was an oil-rich country that could finance its own reconstruction. Yet this latest supplemental includes billions more for the ``stabilization'' of Iraq that could have instead gone to rebuild New Orleans. The Vietnam war required only a single supplemental, after which it was financed through the regular budget process. But virtually all of this money for the war in Iraq has been provided in so-called ``emergency'' supplementals that do not require budgetary tradeoffs such as spending cuts or tax increases. As a result, every dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar of debt for our children and grandchildren. For their money, future generations are getting a terrible return. Thanks to our seemingly open-ended occupation of Iraq, anti-American forces are growing stronger, not weaker. Despite parliamentary elections and limitless American aid for democracy building, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Though even the rubber stamp Republicans in Congress have shown a real interest in transferring authority to Iraqi security forces, their training proceeds at a snail's pace. This emergency supplemental bill does provide badly needed funds for Katrina reconstruction. Particularly worthwhile is this legislation's support for levee improvements, the rebuilding of the Veterans Administration hospital in New Orleans, alternative housing for hurricane survivors, and community development block grants. But the numbers speak for themselves. The bill provides more than three times more funding for defense-related expenditures than it does for Katrina-related aid. Because I cannot support additional spending for a war that has already claimed nearly 2,500 American servicemen and women and countless Iraqi citizens, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007. The United States should plant seeds of peace, not seeds of war. Tragically, however, this legislation appropriates nearly $5 billion-- or about 25 percent of total spending--for direct military assistance. H.R. 5522 also includes more than $2.5 billion for so-called ``Economic Support Funds'' that recipient countries often direct toward security budgets. This spending subsidizes armed conflict, encouraging violence rather than diplomacy around the world. At the same time, the legislation includes several provisions I would have loved to support as a stand-alone bill. For example, it provides $450 million for humanitarian relief efforts in Sudan. Significant financing is included for much-needed disaster and famine assistance, temporary resettlement of refugees, development aid, and peacekeeping operations. I hope that this assistance will help ameliorate the consequences of the genocide in Darfur. Similarly, I support bipartisan efforts to combat global AIDS. But in the end, the bad outweighs the good and I must vote against this bill, which encourages billions in counterproductive military assistance.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5252, the so-called Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, H.R. 5252. Supporters of this bill claim that if telephone companies provide video services to compete with cable and satellite, rates will decrease and quality of service will increase. I agree, but there is nothing in current law stopping phone companies from offering video services. Just ask Verizon, which currently offers fiber optic TV in 16 states--and counting. However, AT&T and others thought they could get a better deal from their Congressional benefactors. The Leave No Lobbyist Behind Republican Congress did not disappoint them. This bill eliminates all requirements to build out service to an entire community, so if you want to benefit from competition, you better live on the right side of town with the rich people. Your city also better have enough money to have a lawyer permanently stationed in Washington, DC, because this bill gives the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, final say over all video services. Under current law, cities control when and where video providers dig up streets to lay cable and they set standards for customer service and billing. But small government Republicans think that the FCC knows better. They provide no new staff or money to handle this enormous responsibility, so expect a busy signal the next time you have a problem with your cable bill. Finally, this bill was a critical opportunity to renew so-called ``net neutrality'' rules that require Internet Service Providers to treat all Web sites equally. When Google was being run out of a college dorm, the search page loaded just as quickly as Yahoo or MSN or the Comcast corporate Web site. The ability for so-called ``garage inventors'' to enter the market without paying a toll or suffering degraded service enabled the Internet's rapid growth and success. Those non-discrimination rules ended last year, and broadband providers have made no secret of their desire to extract a high price for continued service. Their multi-million dollar campaign to defeat a net neutrality amendment only confirms their insidious plans. This gift to giant telecom companies, devoid of any worthwhile public policy, is a disgrace, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support putting a stop to the Federal Aviation Administration's abusive and dishonest tactics in negotiating a new contract with the nation's air traffic controllers. Under an unprecedented interpretation of current law, the FAA is claiming the ability to declare an impasse in negotiations and impose its terms. But such a unilateral action is patently wrong and unfair. It's long past time for Congress to return the parties to an equal footing and get them back to the negotiating table. I hope that my vote for H.R. 5449 will send a strong message. The agency ought to cease misrepresenting controllers' salaries. If, as the FAA claims, salaries are truly exorbitant, then the agency shouldn't hesitate to enter binding arbitration. The FAA's desire to avoid arbitration speaks volumes about the weakness of its arguments. Working under incredibly stressful and difficult conditions, air traffic controllers protect the safety of millions of Americans. I hope the FAA will follow Congress' lead in affording them the respect they deserve.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act of 2006. Though the Majority disingenuously argues that environmental regulations are responsible for high gas prices, the facts don't support their claim. Refining costs have increased because oil companies have deliberately decreased capacity to boost profits. In the late 1980s and early '90s, oil companies shut down 30 refineries in an attempt to raise profit margins. The scheme worked: refinery revenues increased by 255 percent last year. In response to market pressure, refining capacity has increased in recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, capacity increased by 1.4 million barrels per day. As a result, the American Petroleum Institute believes that H.R. 5254 is completely unnecessary. The free market that the Republicans claim to love is working, but this legislation is about politics, not about solving the priorities of America's working families. This legislation would: Allow the President to place new refineries on closed military bases. The military base in my district would probably be an appealing target for this President: it's the site of a planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many communities around the country, the City of Alameda has undergone an extensive planning process to convert the base to civilian use, but if the President said the word, the City's work could be suspended while the federal government decided whether or not it wanted to build a refinery on the premises. Undermine environmental review processes and make state and local environmental officials answer to a new refinery czar appointed by President Bush. The one good thing you can say about this bill is that it's not another gift to oil companies--they readily admit that environmental regulations have not prevented them from building new refineries. This legislation is just another ill-conceived talking point for Republicans desperate to appear responsive to rising energy prices. I won't play that game and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no''.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, if there was any doubt, FEMA's performance during Hurricane Katrina proved the Department of Homeland Security's incompetence. I had hoped that more than 3 years after its creation, the Department would use common sense. But as DHS continues to violate Americans' civil liberties, pursue policies that make us no more secure, and misallocate funds, I cannot vote to throw good money after bad. H.R. 5441 will allow the TSA to spend $6.4 billion strip-searching grandmothers and small children. Yet multiple audits have found that despite this and other invasive techniques, the Department is no more likely to detect a weapon than were security personnel prior to September 11, 2001. Under this bill, DHS will continue to screen only 5 percent of port containers and virtually no air cargo. Wyoming will still get about $27.80 per capita in homeland security funding while California will receive only about $8.05. I shudder to think how FEMA will handle the next large earthquake in the Bay Area when they can't even handle a hurricane with a week's warning. I vote ``no'' to DHS's misplaced priorities and urge my colleagues to stop supporting a dysfunctional agency.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues to consider the thoughts of former President Jimmy Carter on achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. [From the Nation, May 25, 2006] House Vote Harms Palestine, Israel, U.S. (By John Nichols) Jimmy Carter has been blunt: Despite the fact of a Palestinian election result that was not to their liking, the former president says, ``it is unconscionable for Israel, the United States and others under their influence to continue punishing the innocent and already persecuted people of Palestine.'' Since the political wing of the militant group Hamas swept parliamentary elections in Palestine, the U.S. and Israel have been trying to use economic pressure to force a change of course. Disregarding the democracy that President Bush says he wants to promote in the Middle East, the U.S. has sanctioned policies that have fostered chaos on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and created increasingly harsh conditions for people who have known more than their share of suffering. ``Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime,'' argues Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose involvement in the Middle East peace process has extended across three decades. ``Because they voted for candidates who are members of Hamas, the United States government has become the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life.'' Instead of checking and balancing the president's misguided approach to an election result that displeased him, Congress has added fuel to the fire. By a lopsided vote of 361 to 37, the House voted Tuesday for the so-called ``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act,'' a measure so draconian that even the Bush administration has opposed it. The legislation, which still must be reconciled with a similar measure passed by the Senate, would cut off all assistance to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and place conditions on humanitarian assistance delivered directly to the Palestinians by non-government organizations. Presidential spokesman Tony Snow, in restating the White House's opposition to the measure says that it ``unnecessarily constrains'' the flow of essential assistance--food, fresh water, medicine--in a manner that does, indeed, ``tie the president's hand'' when it comes to providing humanitarian aid. It also has the potential to encourage, rather than restrain, violence. Representative Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who was one of the few members of the House to argue against the legislation, correctly explained that the approach endorsed by most of his colleagues will strengthen the hand of Palestinian extremists. ``It does little to prioritize on the basis of our strategic interests, and provides no prospect for Palestinian reform coming through the process of negotiations,'' Blumenauer said of the legislation. ``In so doing, it weakens the hands of those who advocate for peace negotiations, and supports those extremists who believe in violence.'' Debra DeLee, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, which works closely with Israeli groups seeking a peaceful settlement of tensions with the Palestinians, calls the bill ``an exercise in overreaching that will undercut American national security needs, Israeli interests, and hope for the Palestinian people, if it's ever signed into law.'' ``We urged the House to craft legislation that was focused and flexible enough to allow the U.S. to respond to Hamas' election victory in a firm, yet responsible, manner,'' explained a frustrated DeLee. ``But by failing to provide the president with a real national security waiver, by failing to include a sunset clause for draconian performance requirements that will stay on the books regardless of who is running the Palestinian Authority, and by failing to distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians who support a two-state solution, the supporters of this bill have missed that opportunity for now.'' Despite its dramatic flaws, the bill drew bipartisan support, with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, lining up their respective caucuses behind it. Of the 37 ``no'' votes, 31 came from Democrats, including senior members such as Michigan's John Conyers and John Dingell, Californians George Miller and Pete Stark and Wisconsin's David Obey. Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, a contender for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, also opposed the measure, as did California's Barbara Lee, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The six Republican ``no'' votes came from Maryland's Wayne Gilchrest, North Carolina's Walter Jones, Arizona's Jim Kolbe, Illinois' Ray LaHood and Texans Ron Paul and Mac Thornberry. As is frequently the case on votes involving Israel and Palestine, dozens of members did not participate. Nine House members, all of them Democrats, voted ``present'' Tuesday. Twenty-five members, eleven of them Democrats, fourteen of them Republicans, registered no vote. Americans for Peace Now's DeLee says that, as the House and Senate seek to reconcile differing bills, her group will continue to work to alter the legislation so that it will not encourage extremism or worsen a humanitarian crisis. But there is no question that the task has been made more difficult by the overwhelming House vote in favor of this misguided measure.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, even President Bush admits that this country's addiction to oil is a crisis, but, like a desperate junkie, the Republican Congress is frantically trying one more time to squeeze every last drop out of our pristine wilderness. Mr. Pombo's bill--which won't have any meaningful impact on oil prices and which has no chance of passing the Senate--is a tragic reminder that the Republican Majority has lost the will to seriously govern this country. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is Republicans' reflex to high gas prices in the same way that banning gay marriage is their reflex to a disgruntled conservative base, and tax cuts are their reflex to sagging poll numbers. In the 11 years Republicans have worked to open ANWR, they could have instead begun to wean America off its dependence on unsustainable energy sources. The Bush Administration's own studies show that any oil derived from ANWR would amount to about 3.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil--a six-month supply for the U.S. Once drilling has violated the area, however, the natural habitat that once existed will be permanently ruined. ANWR is the largest undeveloped wilderness left in our country. This 19 million acre coastal plain has been called ``America's Serengeti'' because of its abundance of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow geese, 135 species of migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and musk oxen. To destroy this natural treasure for six months of oil would be unconscionable. I urge my colleagues to reject this sham once and for all so that after 11 years of lost time, we can finally get serious about renewable energy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers. I would just like to reiterate my thanks to all the people. I would like to mention Sean McCluskie, who has been my staff member on the Subcommittee for Human Resources for over 7 years and, unfortunately, is leaving us for greener pastures. I want to thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard on these bills that come before our subcommittee which get little attention outside of the professionals in the social work field. Again, I thank our Chair and thank Mr. DeLay and the people who have worked so well together to make this important step to improve the lives of foster and perhaps adoptive children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should go unnoticed that the distinguished majority whip has become a recent adoptive father of, I believe, now a 7-month-old boy.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished majority whip yield?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the opportunity to note that it is this issue of helping children that in my 34 years here has always brought us together as no other issue does. The gentlewoman from Ohio, with whom I have often disagreed on political issues, and I note the presence of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) with whom I have disagreed on almost every issue except in the area of helping children. Now I suspect it is because the Republicans need more Republicans, and they are trying to get more children into politics, but other than that, Mr. Speaker, it is in the spirit of helping young people mature in this country. I do not know if many of you know that the gentleman from Texas is responsible, and I say this having chaired the District Committee when there used to be one, but with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), he was instrumental in creating a family court in the District of Columbia, which most other States or jurisdictions have. Now he has done some other things with legislation in Texas with which I have a little trouble. But other than that, he has created a court here that helps children. I want to remark on one other thing in Mr. DeLay's career. I am aware that, in Texas, he has created a most unique and it sounds to me like an exciting community called the Rio Bend Community. For those who are unfamiliar with this, it creates a subdivision of let us say eight homes. I suspect they are ranch homes or standard homes, where eight families who have foster children and perhaps birth children can live in close proximity and share baby-sitting and teaching. When I talk about sharing teaching, I am also aware that in this area of Rio Bend, Texas, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is known as Old Hypotenuse, and Old Hypotenuse has been tutoring the children in this community in geometry. He may not know that I got a 100 in geometry in high school, Mr. Speaker, and I might be able to come down and spell him for a while. But I just want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and Mr. DeLay for the marvelous work they have done for children in this country. I hope we can continue in a bipartisan way to unify our efforts in the House to make every day for every child in this country more healthy with better education and a better opportunity to develop into citizens of which we can all be proud. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, H.R. 5403, and ask my associates to vote for this legislation. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has so eloquently described, this will help foster children across the country. But I think an easier way to look at it is here in the District of Columbia area where we are a subway ride from three States. From Maryland to Virginia to D.C., we will find that a juvenile judge in one area may have a placement of a child with a relative or acceptable foster family in another area as they move from Maryland to Virginia. Now in California in the gentleman's district there, there may not be a lot of people wanting to go to Oregon or Nevada, it is a little longer trip. But in areas like the New Jersey-New York area, heavily populated areas are close by, and children could easily be placed in close proximity and have to cross State lines. This legislation will allow that to be done. It takes care of a lot of technical details in terms of speeding up the process so that approval can be done across State lines, and it calls on States to update their requirements for approving the transfer of children across State lines and into foster care. It probably will help older children, and by older I am saying 9 or older, who we have the most difficulty in placing in foster care. It is for that reason that this will help. Right now, a child 9 years or older has maybe a 20 percent chance or less of placement. We need to do better, and this bill will help. We have 100,000 children ready for adoption, and this Congress should indeed do all that it can to expedite those procedures. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point first of all to commend the distinguished chairman of the Public Assistance Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Herger, for his Safe and Stable Families bill which we hope will be coming to the floor soon. It provides another $40 million to train case workers to help in this area. Chairman Herger has done yeoman's work on that bipartisan bill, and I know we are getting help from the junior Senator from the State of California who has offered to help expedite it on the Senate side, and with some luck, we will be able to pass that bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. We seriously hope that he will grow up to be a Democrat. But, aside from that, I want to extend best wishes. He is a man who practices what he preaches and is doing his share to extend this concern for adoptive children in this country.