Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4681 because it inappropriately uses a blunt instrument to clumsily attempt to achieve Middle East peace. If this carelessly written and unnecessary legislation becomes law, it will set the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back further and result in additional Israeli and Palestinian deaths. H.R. 4681 weakens moderate pro-peace Palestinians. This legislation does not discriminate in imposing sanctions against both Hamas and non- Hamas controlled elements and officials of the Palestinian Authority, PA. H.R. 4681 bans all aid to the Palestinian Legislative Council, PLC, and PA agencies and instrumentalities, including those not controlled by Hamas. Among the officials this bill prohibits from receiving assistance is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been instrumental in counterbalancing Hamas and working toward a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This legislation undermines diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. This bill prohibits all members of the PA regardless of their affiliation or non-affiliation with Hamas--from obtaining visas necessary for diplomatic travel. This ill-advised rule will prevent the United States from fully engaging and bolstering moderate Palestinian leaders who recognize and support peace with Israel. Even as the United Nations reports of an impending humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this bill imposes unnecessarily strict sanctions on providing aid to Palestinian groups and non-government organizations not affiliated with Hamas. Under this legislation, the Palestinian people could receive essential medicine, but funds for democracy assistance, economic development, and sanitation infrastructure would be prohibited. This legislation therefore makes more likely a humanitarian crisis that will increase support for extremism, thereby endangering Israel and further destabilizing the region. H.R. 4681 also ties the President's hands in dealing with emergency security and humanitarian crises. The bill limits the President's ability to waive financial sanctions and travel prohibitions. It onerously requires the President to obtain congressional approval for every waiver on a case-by-case basis, complicating and delaying an American response to, for example, new Palestinian elections or a natural disaster. Moreover, this legislation is unnecessary. Current U.S. law already forbids members of Hamas and other foreign terrorist organizations from obtaining visas or having diplomatic relations with the United States. According to the Bush Administration, the executive branch already has ample authority to impose all of the bill's restrictions. It is a rare but notable occurrence for me to agree with this Administration. While I believe, that America should not provide aid to Hamas, I oppose this bill's reckless approach to the Middle East peace process. I voted for S. Con. Res. 79, that states that the U.S. should not provide assistance directly to the PA if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the PA maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. Unlike the bill before us today, however, that resolution provided the executive branch the flexibility necessary to work with moderate Palestinian groups and permitted foreign aid to go to nongovernmental organizations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful legislation and to consider a more thoughtful approach to achieving peace in the Middle East.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Alameda County Transit Agency, AC Transit, headquartered in Oakland, California. For the sixth time in 9 years, AC Transit has been recognized as the Nation's most outstanding public bus agency at the American Public Transportation Association, APTA, meeting in Anaheim, California. At its annual ``Bus Roadeo'' in which bus operators and maintenance teams demonstrate their driving skills and knowledge, APTA has crowned AC Transit's drivers and mechanics as the ``Best of the Best.'' In addition AC Transit also won first place for its Customer Service in a special competition to evaluate bus operators' courtesy, patience and know-how. The ``Best of the Best'' award came after grueling tests of competition involving more than 40 transit agencies with teams of drivers and mechanics from virtually every State in the country. Drivers were tested on their abilities to smoothly stop and maneuver their coaches in and out of tightly constricted spaces, avoiding mishaps and pedestrians. Mechanics were tested on their ability to quickly troubleshoot vehicle malfunctions by quickly diagnosing problems and instituting immediate repairs. The competition is the ``Super Bowl'' for transit agencies, offering some of the world's top professionals an opportunity to display their driving skills, reflexes, judgment and superior workshop intelligence. The ``Best of the Best'' designation represents the highest combined scores of the operator and maintenance team. AC Transit's team-- operator Jesse DelaCruz and mechanics, Carlos Leyva, Grant Pinkston and Donald Righter--was deemed number one in the Nation. AC Transit operator Patricia Lock won first place for Customer Service. Congratulations to AC Transit on winning this prestigious ``Best of the Best'' award.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Interior Appropriations bill. Given their commitment to ``conservative values,'' I would think that Republicans would be more committed to actual conservation. Instead, this bill shortchanges our environment, attacks our natural heritage, and recklessly endangers public health. This bill slashes funding for environmental programs by $145 million and provides about $800 million less than is necessary to maintain current environmental protection services. Specifically, this legislation cuts Land and Water Conservation programs, which provide funding for the acquisition of land for national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and monuments, to their lowest funding levels in 30 years. At the same time, this bill cuts the Forest Legacy Program by more than $43 million, the Fish and Wildlife Service by $55 million and the National Park Service by $100 million. We have an obligation to ensure that future generations can enjoy the beauty of our national parks and public lands. With this bill, however, the ``Moral Majority'' has abandoned their social and ethical responsibility to protect our environment and invest in America's future. This indefensible legislation not only harms our environment but places Americans' health at risk by cutting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to its lowest funding level in a decade. According to the EPA, close to $20 billion--nearly 30 times the appropriated amount--is necessary to maintain our current water quality. I am not willing to endanger the health of millions of Americans by exposing them to dirtier water. I don't believe something as important as our natural resources should be left in the hands of Republican members of the flat-earth society who don't even believe in global warming. There is scientific consensus that the earth is warming because of manmade greenhouse gases and the threat posed by global warming is real and immediate. Recent polls show that 85 percent of Americans believe that global warming is probably happening and 76 percent, including 63 percent of conservatives, think the Federal government is not doing enough to address the problem. Yet Republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge global warming, they won't even allow the House to consider the issue. If Republicans want to preach conservative values, perhaps they should start with actually conserving our most precious resources. I simply cannot vote for this mockery of environmental legislation and I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. Rather than aid in a speedy recovery after a natural disaster, this bill is itself a disaster for the environment. Forestry experts have repeatedly expressed concern about the harmful effects of salvage logging, yet Republicans choose to ignore sound science and insist on implementing environmentally irresponsible logging policies. Contrary to what Republicans and their campaign contributors in the logging industry would like you to believe, research shows that post-fire logging actually impedes forest regeneration, causes erosion and degrades water quality. As if facilitating the destruction of forests wasn't enough, this bill also weakens existing laws meant to protect our entire environment. In the case of a catastrophic event, H.R. 4200 allows for the removal of timber salvage while ignoring the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, and key provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The exemptions contained in this bill are entirely unnecessary. The Forest Service is currently completing the removal of timber salvage, on national forests impacted by Hurricane Katrina with existing environmental guidelines and authorities for such practices. H.R. 4200 isn't needed and it is merely another attempt by Republicans to dismantle landmark environmental laws. Finally, H.R. 4200 provides no protection for roadless areas, nation recreation areas, national conservation areas or wilderness study areas, thus putting many of our valuable public lands at risk. I believe we have more reason to be concerned about the damage this bill will cause than the potential damage caused by actual natural disasters. H.R. 4200 is nothing short of disastrous for our national forests and public lands and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it appears the third time's the charm for the Republican leadership. Unfortunately, the same is not true for working Americans who will be worse off under yet another morally reprehensible Republican budget. This budget insults students, attacks veterans, and bankrupts future generations. A budget is a statement about priorities. For the party of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, that means rewarding corporate contributors at the expense of ordinary Americans. Republicans protected billions of dollars in giveaways to an oil industry awash in profits. But despite President Bush's State of the Union rhetoric, this budget underfunded investments in alternative energy that are necessary to prevent global warming. What else do the Republicans believe is less important than additional billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy? Education, health care, and the financial well being of our children and grandchildren. Despite record enrollment from pre-K to college, Republicans support large cuts to education. This budget cuts Department of Education funding by $2.2 billion--and provides $15.4 billion less than Republicans promised when they passed No Child Left Behind. Even though college costs have risen 40 percent since 2001, the Republican budget again freezes the maximum Pell Grant and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost higher education loans. Though 46 million Americans lack health insurance, the Republican budget does nothing to improve access to quality care--and actually includes policies that would increase the numbers of people without health insurance and who are underinsured. Rather than embrace necessary fixes to the Medicare prescription drug program, Republicans instead chose to continue billions of dollars in overpayments to managed care plans. And despite regularly thumping their chests while claiming to support the troops, Republicans propose $6.0 billion in cuts to veterans' health care over five years. Many Americans volunteer to serve their country, but the Republican Party rarely serves them. When George Bush was elected President, a satirical newspaper joked that `our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity' was finally over. In the years since, Americans have learned the Republican record of warmongering and fiscal mismanagement is no laughing matter. Prior to this year, Republicans had already turned a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Though this budget cowardly rails to include tens of billions in supplemental requests related to a misguided Iraq War, it nonetheless adds another $2.3 trillion to the rational debt over the next five years. This budget makes clear what no amount of spin and lies can hide. Republicans care more about wealthy corporations and campaign contributors than they do about America's families, our environment, land our future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this cruel and heartless bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Miller, Executive Director of Kidango, a private, nonprofit agency providing a variety of services to children and families in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties. Paul Miller has successfully led Kidango to become a leader in providing quality childcare and child development services to children and support services to their families. Mr. Miller joined Kidango in 1979 and has helped the organization grow from serving just 90 children at one Fremont, California center to over 2,800 children attending forty plus centers throughout the San Francisco Bay Counties. Kidango has over 350 employees. Miller points with pride to his dedicated and committed regional and center directors, teaching staff, maintenance, food service and administrative staff, all who have an integral role in making sure the families and children Kidango serve receive the best quality programs possible. Recent evidence of Paul Miller's ability to seize new opportunities and offer quality programs for children is readily apparent in Union City, California, where Kidango operates a preschool program on every New Haven Unified School District campus. Building on a 20-year relationship, the school district and Kidango launched a Preschool for All program in 2001. By the following year, Union City has the distinction of being the first district in the State of California to offer Preschool for All. The flagship New Haven-Kidango Preschool for All program has caught the attention of educators and policymakers throughout the State of California. Mr. Miller continues to work hard to introduce Universal Preschool to other Bay Area school districts and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction has appointed him to the Universal Preschool Task Force. In addition to.his exemplary administrative leadership at Kidango, Paul Miller is a major force throughout the State of California advocating for public policy that promotes quality childcare and early education. He is actively involved in the Child Development Policy Institute, the leader in the childcare and development field on fiscal and public policy matters, and the principal advocate for children and families in California's legislative budget process. Paul Miller's 30 plus years of advocacy for children and their families are beyond measure. He is committed and dedicated to excellence as demonstrated by the growth and success of Kidango. He works tirelessly with a single focus of inspiring all children and their families by promoting their potential and diversity through quality education and nurturing relationships. Paul will be recognized at a well-deserved Kidango Staff Appreciation Dinner on May 20, 2006. I join them in appreciating him for his good work.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122. Only a few months after ruthlessly slashing $40 billion in health care, education and job training benefits for working Americans, the Republicans have shamelessly brought forth a Defense Authorization bill that wastefully spends taxpayer dollars and does nothing to make this country any safer. This bill clearly demonstrates that this Republican Congress has a habitual problem of fiscal mismanagement. This legislation spends billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. In turn, these defense contractors thank their Republican sugar daddies by filling their campaign coffers. H.R. 5122 wastefully authorizes $9.3 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense, a $184 million increase over President Bush's request and $2 billion more than the current level of spending. Rather than allocate billions for a Cold War weapon system that will never work, Republicans in Congress should address the real security threat posed by weapons that can easily be delivered or smuggled into America in a suitcase or container. The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has not requested and does not need. The Republican legislation also allocates nearly $46 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptors, $1.4 billion more than President Bush requested and $2.9 billion more than is currently spent. Yet these planes were initially justified as necessary to compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters that no longer exists. Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as those the U.S. Air Force currently employs in combat. In Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, the Air Force has demonstrated the superiority of existing U.S. planes. In addition, the GAO recently reported that the costs of the F/A-22 Raptors have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than was budgeted for by the Air Force. Where does accountability begin? H.R. 5122 does not require the President to provide an exit strategy out of Iraq. Even after spending $315 billion on a misguided Iraq War, the Bush Administration has no clue on how to resolve the situation or an idea of how to get American soldiers out of the conflict. It is time to stop giving the President a blank check to fight an aimless war. The only thing that the $50 billion outlay in this bill guarantees is that the U.S. will be in Iraq longer than is necessary and that more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die without just cause. I am also very concerned that certain members of Congress have decided to support chaplains who want to push their own religious agenda rather than the military's commitment to religious tolerance. When chaplains join the military, they accept a duty to serve the military's mission in addition to their mission to God. In providing spiritual guidance to our soldiers, chaplains should never carry out their duty in a manner that divides or alienates soldiers of different faiths. Chaplains who press ahead with their own agenda ahead of the military's mission threaten the cohesiveness of military units and the effectiveness of our soldiers in carrying out their duties. I urge my colleagues to vote against this wasteful and irresponsible bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, stops wasting hard earned tax dollars on useless weapon systems, and accounts for what is truly required in Iraq.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the additional time I may control back to Mr. Brown.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her response. I would like to note that the gentlewoman, Mrs. Johnson from the Fifth District of Connecticut, having the clear opportunity to afford millions of Americans the extra time to sign up for this marvelous program has declined to do it. In doing so, she has condemned probably 7 million people to paying an extra 7 to 10 percent on their premiums for the rest of their lives. If this plan is so good, then my question would be why the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who is refusing to extend the time for these seniors, why they are doing that. It just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that if the plan is good why they would try to deny this. The extra million people that the Congressional Budget Office tells us would sign up and for the great savings that would come it would cost an extra maybe $100 million. But out of a $1 trillion bill that would seem to me to be a paltry amount and it would save 7.5 million seniors from this additional Republican tax on their Medicare benefits. I just wanted to know clearly that it is Mrs. Johnson, the author of this, who refuses to allow us to vote on the opportunity to extend the deadline for those many millions of Americans who haven't been able to participate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair. Is this motion amendable?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, second parliamentary inquiry. Is it possible for the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the author of the amendment, to withdraw the motion, accept a friendly amendment to urge the administration to move the May 15 enrollment deadline to the end of the year, thereby enabling another 1 million people to enroll and saving 7 million people from extra penalties, and then reoffer the motion to suspend the rules and pass this resolution?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, that is the question. I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, like to address a question to the author of the bill. Would she be willing, as you have said, she has the clear authority to withdraw her motion, amend it so that 1 million Americans would have extra time to sign up and save the money and then resubmit it to the House. Then I am sure we will all support her resolution. I would be glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut if she would care to respond.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me time. This $70 billion sham defrauds the working class to line the pockets of the super-wealthy friends of the Republican Party. Taxpayers with incomes of over $10 million will have received on average $500,000 from the Republican capital gains and dividend cuts, and hardworking Americans making under $50,000 have average tax savings of $10; $500,000 if you are rich; $10 if you are just getting along. Capital gains and dividend tax breaks benefit the rich, not the working class. Here is a chart that indicates how this money is distributed: $20 to the average middle-income household, $42,000 to those making over a million bucks. You can see here we have taken care, the Republicans have taken care, of Members of Congress, they gave us $1,388, at least for those who are only working in the public trough. Not bad. But this bill wastes $70 billion on millionaires that could be used to improve people's lives. With that $70 billion, $39 billion in unnecessary cuts to Medicaid which hurts the health care of children, disabled and the poor could be restored. We could fund the President's great bragging rights to the No Child Left Behind with $9 billion and provide health insurance for every child in this country for $20 billion, and there might even be a few bucks left over to decrease the deficit. So you have here, amidst all the cute rhetoric on the other side, voodoo economics at its most ridiculous and radical extreme and moral reprehensibility that gives $100,000 to millionaires, but takes health care away from families earning less than $16,000 a year. Vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican tax reconciliation conference report. I'd like to say it was an honor to sit on the conference committee, but this backroom deal was cut without any input from House Democratic conferees. The predictable result is a Republican agreement that benefits millionaires at the expense of working families. You don't have to dig far into this bill to realize it helps the rich get richer, while doing little for hard working American families. The extended dividends and cap gains tax breaks didn't even expire until 2008, but Republicans wanted to reward their rich campaign donors before the November elections. As a result, people making over $10 million get an average capital gains and dividends tax breaks of about $500,000 a year. These cuts give families making under $50,000 a whopping $10 tax cut. It is clear where the Republican priorities lie. Some will say that other tax cuts in this bill help the working class. The facts don't support that argument. Families struggling to get by on less than $20,000 a year get only $2 in average tax breaks from this bill. Average middle income households only get $20. Where could all these tax cuts go? The answer is simple, those making over $1.6 million--the top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers--get $82,000 a year in tax breaks from President Bush and their Republican friends in Congress. In sum, this tax reconciliation bill is a $70 billion boondoggle for America's wealthiest taxpayers. Wouldn't it make a little more sense to spend this money to help people in need? We could easily eliminate the entire $39 billion in cuts Republicans made last fall to programs like Medicaid, student loans and food stamps. That would leave us $31 billion to fully fund Bush's No Child Left Behind education plan and provide every child in the country with health insurance. There might even be some money left over to help decrease the budget deficit mess Bush has gotten us in. It is clear this bill benefits the rich at the expense of the working class, but that isn't the whole story. Just as Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to lead us into the quagmire in Iraq, Congressional Republicans are lying about the true cost of this legislation. This bill pays for the tax cuts for the wealthy by actually raising some taxes in the short-term. Many of the so-called ``revenue raisers'' in the bill will actually end up being huge tax breaks in future years. One specific provision allows people to cash out traditional IRAs and convert them into Roth IRAs. This raises revenue in the first few years, but will cost up to $1 billion dollars a year starting in 2013. Who benefits most from this future tax break? You guessed it . . . families making over $150,000 a year. Regardless of what some may say, tax cuts for the wealthy do not generate economic growth, jobs or increased wages. The only people that win under the Republican reconciliation plan are the millionaires who receive all the tax breaks. It is immoral to give a millionaire an extra $100,000 while we're taking Medicaid benefits away from a family of three making under $15,750. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for the working class and vote against these irresponsible and immoral tax breaks for the rich.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, falls far short of what's needed. Because the Republican majority operates largely as a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they refuse to take the only step that will ensure the safety of our ports: 100 percent scanning of containers. Instead, this bill mandates more reports that will tell us what hundreds of experts already have: you can't ensure safety if you don't verify the contents of every container. The studies, further reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security, and micromanaging of port operations in this legislation are a paltry substitute for real security. Apparently the Majority feared that common sense would prevail, as they won't even allow a vote on a Democratic amendment to scan 100 percent of containers within five years, following the model set by Hong Kong's successful Integrated Container Inspection System, which has operated since 2005 without significantly increasing costs or causing delays. The shipping industry itself admits that the maximum cost of 100 percent scanning would be $125 per container. It could be as low as $6.50 per container. Either way, it's a small price to pay for security when compared to the $4,000 cost of shipping a container from Asia. I will vote in favor of this bill because it is an improvement over the current system and sends more federal money to ports to improve their security. However, unlike my Republican colleagues, I will not claim ``mission accomplished'' on port security until we know what's in every container entering this country.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Roberta Cooper for her 26 years of dedicated service to the City of Hayward, California. On June 15, 2006, the City of Hayward will host a farewell dinner to honor her as she retires from office at the end of her term on June 6, 2006. The Mayor has been instrumental in the initiation and development of many projects in Hayward including a new City Hall, B Street Marketplace and Parking Structure, Albertson's Shopping Center, Atherton Place Condominiums, City Walk Condominiums, Fire Station 1 at C and Main, and the Theater Complex at Foothill & B coming in 2007. All of the mentioned projects were related to Hayward's downtown redevelopment. Other areas of Hayward have also benefited from her exemplary leadership including the development of Fire Station 9, Oliver Sports Park of Hayward, Eden Shores Development, Harder Road Railroad Under- crossing, the Twin Bridges neighborhood and the accompanying Mission Foothills of Hayward Golf Course and the Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project. Mayor Cooper is a longtime resident of Hayward. Prior to assuming the helm of the city's leadership as Mayor, she was an educator. She taught in the Hayward Unified School District from 1968 until her retirement in 1994. She was elected to the Hayward City Council in 1988 and re-elected to the Council in 1992. She was elected Mayor in April 1994, re-elected in 1998 and reelected again in March 2002. Mayor Cooper serves on many public agencies focused on economic development, capital improvement, transportation, the environment and city governance. She involves herself in community service with equal interest and dedication. A host of non-profit organizations have benefited from her leadership, such as The Kids Breakfast Club, Literacy Plus Project, Hayward's Human Services Commission and the Eden Youth Center. She lists among her personal pet projects the Hayward New Start, a Tattoo Removal Program, the Hayward Honor Band, and cHime-In. I join Mayor Cooper's constituents, friends and admirers in congratulating her on a job well done. She plans to use her time to garden, read, learn to use her home computer and travel. I hope she accomplishes all this and much more as she embarks on a well-deserved retirement. Thank you to my friend, Bertie Cooper, for all you have done to make a difference in our community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Iran Freedom Support Act. I certainly share my colleagues' concerns about Iran's apparent push to develop nuclear weapons, but I oppose H.R. 282 because I fear President Bush will use this legislation to lead America into an unnecessary war with Iran. This President used this same pattern in his last march to war in Iraq. The resolution calls upon the United States to request that the United Nations Security Council impose sanctions against Iran. President Bush used Iraq's violation of similar sanctions to justify his initiation of the ill-fated Iraq War. The legislation also authorizes President Bush to fund the Iranian opposition to radical Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad despite the fact that American support for pro-Western leaders has often backfired. In fact it's backfired in Iran before! America's historic support for the Shah propelled former radical leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power. Is it any wonder then that the Washington Post recently reported that pro-democracy forces in Iran do not want U.S. funding since their association with America taints their credibility within their country? The United States spent millions of dollars in Iraq to fund the opposition to Saddam Hussein. In return, the Bush Administration received bogus information from informants that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Administration then used this information to scare America into war against Iraq. Finally, H.R. 282 advocates regime change and I find it difficult to believe Iran will cooperate with our diplomatic proposals if they understand our ultimate goal to be the overthrow of their government. America can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through peaceful and thoughtful diplomacy. But this legislation sets us on the road to war rather than diplomacy. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Mr. McDermott, Mr. Inslee, and Ms. Bean in introducing the Taxpayer Privacy Act of 2006. This bill protects the privacy of millions of Americans, ensuring that taxpayers who rely on paid preparers do not have their confidential and sensitive personal information disseminated, sold or sent overseas. The IRS is currently considering a rule that would make it easier for tax preparers to disclose the private information contained in tax returns--including name, address, Social Security number, employer, income, and charitable donations. Currently, paid preparers can only use taxpayer information to generate business within their own affiliates. The new rule would allow preparers to obtain taxpayers' approval to disclose tax information to generate outside business. Taxpayers should not be coerced into giving up their privacy rights just to file their taxes. Our bill protects taxpayers by requiring preparers to use information only to prepare taxes--and not for any other purpose. Reports also suggest that Ernst and Young and other large tax preparation firms are sending tax returns overseas for processing. But the IRS has no control over tax information once it's been sent to India or another country. Even the best data security systems can't protect private taxpayer information from entrepreneurial foreign businesses than can make huge profits selling U.S. taxpayer information. Our bill strictly prohibits domestic tax preparers from sending returns overseas for processing. Preparers found to have disclosed private information to a foreign entity would be assessed a $1000 fine and up to one year in jail for each wrongful disclosure. The bill does not prohibit a taxpayer from choosing to have their taxes done by a preparer based overseas, it merely protects them from having their taxes shipped to a foreign country when they believe the forms are being completed by their local preparer. This legislation is a common sense solution that protects taxpayers without burdening tax preparers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for taxpayer privacy and support this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609). This Republican bill represents a significant missed opportunity to rollback the raid on student aid and make higher education more affordable and accessible for America's students. When it comes to helping families pay for college, Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But when their campaign contributors say jump, Republicans always ask how high. In December, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative Boehner assured nervous private lenders--who in 2003-2004 contributed more than $250,000 to his campaign--that they would gain rather than lose under the Deficit Reduction Act. ``Relax. Stay calm,'' Boehner told the Consumer Bankers Association. ``At the end of the day, I believe you'll be at least satisfied, or even perhaps happy. Know that I have all of you in my two trusted hands.'' Instead of reducing lender subsidies as was originally proposed, Congressional Republicans subsequently raised interest rates on parent borrowers and required student borrowers to continue paying excessive, above-market interest rates. In total, Republicans cut $12 billion from student loan programs--the largest cut in our nation's history. Today, Representative Boehner is back to his old tricks, protecting the bottom lines of private lenders rather than the pocketbooks of hard-working students. H.R. 609 does nothing to restore the much-needed student loan subsidies cut under the Deficit Reduction Act. Rather, this legislation keeps student loan interest rates for low- and middle- income Americans at an unnecessarily high 6.8 percent, guaranteeing private lenders a profit and students mountains of debt after graduation. Further, H.R. 609 continues to underfund the Pell Grant program, even as the program's purchasing power declines on annual basis. The bill freezes through 2013 the authorized maximum for a Pell Grant scholarship--at just $200 above current levels. Even as the cost of education rises, the purchasing power of Pell Grant loans declines. It is past time that we had a higher education bill that makes college more affordable, boosts America's economic competitiveness, and invests in America's continued prosperity. This legislation does none of the above. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 609 so we can bring forth a bill that actually does what's needed for higher education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion to instruct, and my amendment would merely suggest that at any meeting of two or more conferees every conferee should be invited to attend that meeting.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Rangel's motion to instruct. Madam Speaker, it is of some interest that, as a conferee, this probably would be the only time I have to express my opinion on the conference, as we are usually, as Democrats, not invited to attend and discovering where the conferees meet is a conundrum that is not easily solved by this side of the aisle. But if we were allowed to participate in a democratic fashion, which seems to elude my colleagues across the aisle, we would remind our conferee colleagues that we are going to add trillions to the national debt over the next 5 years as a result of the budget, and to extend tax breaks for millionaires, while we are mortgaging our children's future, seems to me to be immoral. The Republicans voted to increase the debt limit a few weeks ago, and now they want to waste that increase on $50 billion in capital gain and dividend breaks for people making over $1 million a year. There are not many of those in this country, but those who do make over $1 million a year will benefit magnificently from this Republican tax bill and not many other people. It was pointed out that we were given the erroneous assumption that they were doing something about the alternative minimum tax. It is certainly dealing with less than 10 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem. That hardly stands as a solution. I urge support for the motion.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a public servant extraordinaire, Carter Gilmore of Oakland California. Mr. Gilmore's friends and colleagues are honoring him on April 20, 2006, for his 50 years of dedicated and tireless community service. He arrived in California from Houston, Texas, shortly after his marriage to Lizzie Mae Hampton in 1948. They are the proud parents of 6 children, 14 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren. Mr. Gilmore served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and is a retired plant manager of Granny Goose Foods in Oakland. The brutal death of an African American youth, Emmett Till, in Mississippi in 1955 mobilized the civil rights movement and prompted Carter Gilmore to begin his years of service to civil rights and community service. He joined the Alameda Branch of the NAACP. He became an active member and later became a forceful president of this branch during the civil rights movement. He wrote in the monthly newsletter about the quest for equal rights and his letter was placed in the Congressional Record in 1985. When the NAACP lost is leader, Medger Evers, in Mississippi, Mr. Gilmore was willing to relocate and take his place but realized that his community service was needed in California. Mr. Gilmore's dedication and commitment to civil rights moved him upward through the ranks of the NAACP in California and he became the Northern California Area President. Mr. Gilmore's leadership was not limited to his dedicated efforts within the NAACP. He was also involved in a host of activities that garnered him honors for his community leadership. In 1977, Mr. Gilmore was elected to the Oakland City Council. He was reelected in 1981 and 1985 unchallenged. He served as the Vice Mayor from 1979 to 1981. Mr. Gilmore has served on numerous boards, which include the East Oakland Youth Center, Alameda County Fair, League of California Cities, Goodwill Industries, Bay Area Committee on Hypertension and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center of Oakland. He is an active member of many community-based organizations where he continues his dedicated leadership helping seniors, youth, and veterans. Carter Gilmore has proven time and again that one person can make a difference. His 50 years of service has touched many lives and his contributions have been felt in numerous ways. I join his friends and admirers in expressing admiration for his accomplishments and heartfelt appreciation for all his efforts. He has earned the well deserved title public servant extraordinaire.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to tell a tale of two Republican disasters, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. It is a story with no best of times, only the worst of times. This tale is why I oppose the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4939). The main characters in my story are an incompetent President and a corrupt Congress. The setting is an America desperate for honest leadership. But the plot involves lies and cover-ups. The problem is misplaced priorities. But the solution is not this supplemental, which provides another $67.6 billion for a failed war but only $19 billion to help the victims of Katrina. The first disaster, the Iraq War, was predicated on lies. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had never attempted to buy uranium from Niger, and was not about to welcome American soldiers with open arms. An incompetent President failed to prepare America for the postwar period. As a result, looting of stores and museums began shortly after the United States military gained control of Baghdad. Months later, sectarian violence has pushed Iraq to civil war, with Shiite militia and security forces clashing with Sunni citizens and insurgents. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and in harms way. Two American soldiers and 40 Iraqi soldiers and civilians are killed every day. As long as we stay in Iraq, the insurgency will continue, even as the so-called Iraqi democracy experiment goes nowhere. Three months after parliamentary elections, the Iraqi parliament has yet to form a government. Finally, large Republican donors including Halliburton have looted the American treasury. Using their connections to secure no-bid contracts for services in Iraq, these firms overcharge American taxpayers and underserve our troops. All the while, Republicans' blind allegiance to the President causes them to write blank checks, throwing good money after bad at a war that is making America less secure. The second disaster was the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina. Several days before Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the President was briefed on the severity of the storm and the likelihood levees would be breached. But after failing to cut short his extended vacation to help with the response, the President told ABC News and the American public he was not advised the levees were likely to collapse. After years of underfunding levee construction and maintenance, Republicans attempted to shift the blame for the disaster and the inadequate response onto state and local officials. But it was President Bush who nominated unqualified campaign hacks to head FEMA and congressional Republicans who rubber-stamped the appointment of Michael Brown. As a result of insufficient preparation and incompetent administration, tens of thousands of hurricane victims went without adequate food, water, and shelter in the storm's aftermath. Six months after Katrina, relief workers are still finding bodies of victims. In an attempt to atone for their sins, the Republicans have finally brought forth additional legislation to help Katrina victims. But in a pathetic and transparent attempt to prevent full debate on the disastrous Iraq War, President Bush's Republican cronies in Congress combined two supplementals into one. Although I support additional funding for hurricane victims, I cannot vote for a supplemental that appropriates 74 percent of its funds, or $67.6 billion, to a misguided Iraq war on which we have already wasted $350 billion--and the lives of 2,310 American soldiers and at least 37,000 Iraqi citizens. It is time to tell a new tale, about bringing home our troops and rebuilding homes for Katrina victims. Let's get this Iraq monkey off our back and supplement housing rather than Halliburton. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and help me to tell a new tale about American successes rather than Republicans disasters.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, a woman told President Bush that she was having a hard time understanding his prescription drug program and needed more time so that she could make an informed choice for her mother. Bush told her too bad. Specifically, he said, ``Rolling back good deadlines is not going to help your mom make a good decision.'' He's wrong. The implementation of this drug program has been a disaster. That's not a partisan statement, it's a factual one. Delaying the May 15th deadline until the end of 2006 should be a no-brainer. Senior citizens and people with disabilities shouldn't be forced to pay financial penalties for the rest of their lives because the law was poorly implemented. Nor should we allow the confusion of the last few months to turn beneficiaries off from ever entering the program. Yet, if the deadline goes into effect, that's exactly what will happen. According to the Congressional Budget Office 10 million seniors will pay higher premiums for their prescription drugs for the rest of their lives if this deadline is not delayed. And more than 1 million seniors will choose not to enroll this year. Mr. Bush has long claimed to be a compassionate conservative. There is nothing compassionate about telling America's seniors too bad and forcing them to pay higher premiums for the rest of their lives. My Republican colleagues keep complaining that Democrats are demagoguing the drug bill. We are not. We are here today trying to help them make it work better. I urge them to join us in that effort. America's seniors need and deserve a Medicare drug benefit that is user-friendly, affordable, and stable. Vote for the Berry Amendment to do just that.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 354 because the military should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Colleges and universities should be able to deny access to military recruiters without losing Federal funds. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman courageously integrated the Armed Forces, signing Executive Order 9981 when many in his party opposed racial equality. As a result, the military has since served as an example for private and public organizations alike, encouraging racial equality and opportunity in hiring and promotion. In contrast, President Bush promotes divisive prejudices and his friends in Congress are here today promoting a backward agenda. This resolution declares support for a court decision that prevents institutions of higher education from promoting higher understanding. President Truman demonstrated great courage by racially integrating the military. President Bush and his Republican cronies show great cowardice in failing to advance additional civil rights today. If they were in power in 1948, I doubt they would have acted then either. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and allow universities to continue to promote racial, religious, gender--and sexual--equality.