Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization. Other than the TSA making grandmothers take off their shoes and infants discard their milk bottles prior to boarding airplanes, the War on Drugs might go down in history as the most ineffective program in the history of the United States. We spend over $40 billion per year on the drug war and at least another $30 billion to keep over one million Americans in prison on drug charges. Yet, study after study shows that drugs are as readily available as ever and drug use rates have remained unchanged for the last decade. Incarcerating one person costs at least $30,000 per year, while a comprehensive residential drug treatment program costs about $7,000. Treating drug addiction as a criminal rather than medical problem is not only scientifically unsound--it's a waste of money. If we're going to spare no dollar in the war on drugs, then let's have quality education and after-school options for every child in America. And let's reverse the diabolical and failed policy of denying college loans to students with prior drug offenses. Americans with drug problems obviously need more--not fewer--opportunities to change their lives for the better. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this senseless, wasteful Office of National Drug Control Policy. Let's redirect these dollars to programs that work rather than ``tough on crime'' soundbites and countless useless government reports that do nothing to reduce drug use or addiction.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Trade Sanction A void Act--Iegislation that will stop American manufacturers from facing $809 million in annual trade sanctions from the European Union. On February 12, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body-- for the third time--found that U.S. corporate tax laws violate WTO rules. We failed to fix the flawed foreign sales corporation (FSC) regime with extra-territorial incentive (ETI) scheme. Now we've failed once again to fix the ETI with incentives in the JOBS Act. According to the WTO, the transitional and grandfathered tax breaks in the JOBS Act continue to violate WTO rules. This foolishness must stop now. I've heard many members of this august body talk bout how the U.S. must stand up and be a leader in the world. How can we expect other countries to take us seriously as a world leader when this Congress continually undermines and ignores rules we've agreed to live by? We refuse to join the International Criminal Court, we won't sign the Kyoto Treaty, and we pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Given our track record, is it any wonder the EU continues to bring WTO cases against our non-compliant corporate tax break schemes? We've broken these rules time and time again, and if we don't pass my bill, American manufacturers will pay the price. The EU reacted to the WTO decision by asserting its right to impose retaliatory duties against U.S. exports. Those duties apply to a broad range of goods, and could reach 17 percent by September. If Congress fails to act, U.S. corporations will pay $809 million a year in retaliatory sanctions. The Trade Sanction Avoidance Act will put an end to this game of international tax chicken. By repealing the transitional and grandfathered tax breaks in the JOBS act, Congress will ensure American manufacturers avoid hundreds of millions in unnecessary trade sanctions. This approach is so inherently reasonable; some may wonder why anyone would oppose it. Unfortunately, in the current culture of corruption, protecting tax breaks for big corporations is more important than protecting farmers and small manufacturers from hundreds of millions in trade sanctions. For example, Boeing alone stands to rake in over $600 million from the JOBS Act tax breaks. My legislation protects farmers and small manufacturers from these sanctions so that they can remain competitive in the European Union marketplace. Boeing--which made $2.56 billion in net profit last year--should be willing to give up at least a portion of its tax break to help protect American businesses from sanctions and to help our tax code comply with the WTO rules we've agreed to live by. We can't claim to help American businesses on one hand, while turning our backs on them by failing to fix this problem. This bill is a simple solution to a problem we should have solved years ago. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. Once again, this Congress is attempting to address very serious and complicated problems with a law that substitutes the talking points of ``tough on crime'' politicians for the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child advocates. As a father and someone who has fought for better foster care, education, and health care for children, I object to this ill-conceived legislation that is as much an attack on our independent judiciary as it is a bill to protect kids. Many child advocates themselves oppose this bill because kids in grade school or junior high will be swept up alongside paroled adults in sex offender registries. Many caught in registries would be 13 and 14 year olds. In some states, children 10 and under would be registered. This bill creates new mandatory minimum sentences, which impose the judgment of Congress over every case, regardless of the circumstances. The Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums actually have the opposite of their intended effect. They ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging plea bargains.'' They treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, even though there are vast differences in the seriousness of their conduct and their danger to society. Judges serve a very important role in criminal justice, and Congress should not attempt to do their job for them. Finally, this bill expands the death penalty, which is not a deterrent, costs more to implement than life imprisonment, and runs the risk of executing the innocent. Nobody, especially the parents and victims of sexual abuse who have contacted me on this issue, should confuse my objections to this bad policy with indifference to the problem of child sex abuse in this country. It is a huge problem, affecting millions of American children. Recent news stories prove that the registry system isn't working well. I support aspects of this bill, including a strengthened nationwide registry for pedophiles, with strict requirements for reporting changes of address and punishments for failing to report. I support establishing treatment programs for sex offenders in prison, background checks for foster parents, funding for computer systems to track sex crimes involving the Internet, and, at last resort, procedures for committing sexually dangerous persons to secure treatment facilities. However, I cannot violate my Constitutional duty to protect our independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so I will vote against this bill. I hope that, working with the Senate, we can improve this legislation and implement the policies that everyone agrees are needed without the unintended consequences of the bill in its current form.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill puts commercial food industry interests ahead of the rights of consumers to be warned about food safety issues. The National Uniformity for Food Act would preempt all state food safety labeling protections, even if those protections have no effect on interstate commerce. The bill also bars states from limiting particular toxic chemicals in food, even if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not set standards for those chemicals. For example, the current California requirement for point-of-sale warnings about high mercury levels in certain fish would be eliminated if this bill becomes law. This bill is especially detrimental in states like California that have gone to great lengths to protect consumers through strong food safety labeling requirements. Requirements like California's Proposition 65 have greatly reduced exposure to toxic chemicals in food. California's food safety laws should be a model for the nation. Instead, the grocery and commercial food industries have used their influence in the halls of Congress in an attempt to destroy these laws. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and many consumer groups oppose this bill. Mr. Lockyer said in a letter to the California delegation that the National Uniformity for Food Act ``would greatly impede our ability to protect the health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and under other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our legislature.'' I urge my all my colleagues to stand up for consumers, not corporations, by voting no on the National Uniformity for Food Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act. Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. This bill is a great example of what happens when you put Republican Senators in a room with Dick Cheney to negotiate over Constitutional rights. It's like two foxes negotiating over who can do more damage to the henhouse without upsetting the neighbors. Examining this deal more closely, we see that giving the American people the right to consult a lawyer or challenge a gag order in court is somehow considered a concession by the Bush Administration. Other than that, it's the same old PATRIOT Act that criminalizes speech, protest, and meetings of citizens while also eliminating the right to due process and a search warrant. This bill permanently extends 14 of 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Government can still listen in on your phone conversations without any proof that a terrorist is using the phone and can conduct secret searches of your property. The law will still allow our Government to send a letter to your bank, Internet Service Provider, insurance company, or any other business demanding information about you. The only difference is that businesses no longer have to tell the FBI when they consult an attorney about the request. A government official can still forbid a business from telling anyone that records have been obtained, although this gag would last for an initial one-year period rather than indefinitely. However, the gag can be renewed and doing so is actually made easier by this supposed grand compromise. Finally, the Bush Administration has magnanimously agreed not to look at your library borrowing records, although this agreement makes it easier for them to find out what websites you visit while at the library. Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act can never be fixed because it starts with the fundamental presumption that the Constitution gets in the way of protecting Americans. In fact, we need the Constitution more than ever to protect us from politicians who think they're above the law.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two extraordinary women who were honored by the Fremont Education Foundation in Fremont, California on February 24, 2006 at the Foundation's Annual Excellence in Education Gala. The 2006 honorees, Cheryl Cook-Kallio and Sandi Pantages have provided exemplary contributions to the Fremont Unified School District. Ms. Cook-Kallio is the Excellence in Education Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) Honoree. Ms. Pantages is the Excellence in Education Community Honoree. Ms. Cook-Kallio is an instructor at Irvington High School in Fremont, California and has been an educator with FUSD since 1979. She has coached and led her ``We the People'' team of students to win the California State ``We The People'' Competition. Her students placed fourth in the National ``We The People'' Competition in 2005. She is popular with her students and has received numerous professional honors, grants and fellowships for her teaching, mentorship, and excellence in the areas of Social Studies, United States History and Government. She is an exemplary mentor, motivator and respected educator. Ms. Pantages has served as a member of the Fremont Education Foundation Board of Directors since 1992. She has provided immeasurable support to Fremont's students and has contributed greatly to the Fremont community through her 32-year association and employment with Alameda County Library. She developed the Alameda County Library Foundation and served as Manager of the Fremont Main Library and Fremont Libraries prior to her retirement in 2001. She has received numerous awards and recognition from the city of Fremont, Alameda County Library Foundation and was named Alameda County's Outstanding Manager of the Year-General Government in 1999. Both Cheryl Cook-Kallio and Sandi Pantages have distinguished themselves in their careers and contributions to their community. I congratulate them for the well deserved honor they received from the Fremont Education Foundation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of House Concurrent Resolution 341, which calls on the UN Security Council to expeditiously take action in response to reports of Iran's noncompliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. I am gravely concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran and in any other nation. But, this resolution is the wrong resolution at the wrong time. Right now, Russia is negotiating with Iran to avert their domestic production of enriched uranium. Russia and China also supported the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, decision to refer Iran to the Security Council, but requested that any action against Iran be delayed to March so these negotiations can continue. Yet, here we are on February 16th trying to supersede those negotiations by calling on the UN Security Council to act now. This strikes me as a step toward more unilateralism. In addition to my concern about interfering with ongoing negotiations, the latest U.S. National Intelligence Council analysis projects that Iran is a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon. This expert analysis gives me further reason to question this rush to unilateral action. I urge my colleagues to give peaceful negotiations the opportunity to succeed and vote against this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 2006.'' This legislation creates a Congressional commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. I want to thank Senator Frist, a heart and lung transplant surgeon himself, for introducing companion legislation in the Senate. There is a serious shortage of available and suitable organs for donation. Over 90,000 people are currently waiting for an organ transplant; over 2,200 of these are children under age 18. Over 30,000 new patients are added to the waiting list each year. Because of low donor rates, in 2004 alone over 6,150 people died for lack of a suitable organ. An estimated 12,000 people die each year that meet the criteria for organ donation. Less than half actually become organ donors. Recognition of these gifts of life would publicize the critical need to increase organ donation. Physicians can now successfully transplant kidneys, lungs, pancreases, intestine, livers, and hearts with considerable success. But, without expanded efforts to increase organ donation, the supply of suitable organs will continue to lag behind the need. Incentive programs and public education are critical to maintaining and increasing the number of organs donated each year. Health and Human Services, HHS, has already implemented initiatives to raise the public awareness of this vital act of giving life. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act is a great opportunity for us to work with HHS to draw attention to this life-saving issue. It sends a clear message that donating one's organs is an act that should receive the profound respect of our Nation. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act establishes a nonprofit fund to be used to design, produce, and distribute a Congressional commemorative medal to organ donors or to a surviving family member. Enactment of this legislation would have no cost to the Federal Government. The Treasury Department would provide a small initial loan for start-up purposes, which would be fully repaid. Subsequently, the program would be self-sufficient through charitable donations. This is non-controversial, non-partisan legislation to increase the rate of organ donation. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous faith and courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation. I urge swift passage of the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct, if I may, the chairman's assertions. He has suggested that the Senate's relief is more focused at the rich, and that is not true. It is true that both the House and the Senate would give about 90 percent of their benefits to the top 20 percent, but at the very high end, the difference is amazing. More than half of the House's capital gain and dividend tax cut goes to the best 1 percent of taxpayers, and that 1 percent, those people earning more than $1.2 million a year would receive an average reduction of $26,500 apiece. That is where half of the Republican House bill goes. The Senate's bill, on the other hand, would give the AMT relief, would give that same 1 percent merely 2.5 percent of their AMT relief, or an average of $600 apiece. The other thing that is missing, and I do not suppose it is untrue to say things are missing, you cannot find weapons of mass destruction, did we lie about the war, I do not know, but to look at the fact that the Senate has paid for a good bit of their relief, and if we look at the subsequent 5 years, it is true in the first 5 years the House bill loses $56 billion, and the Senate loses $57 billion, but that is only the tip of the iceberg because in the second 5 years the Senate bill picks up $20 billion because it has not recklessly given away revenue through reduction of capital gains and dividend income. The House, on the other hand, in the second 5 years loses another $30 billion. So while the grand total in 10 years for the Senate is only $37 billion, less than it is in 5 years, it is $80 billion for the House bill over 10 years, a difference of $43 billion. Come on, folks, that $43 billion would pay for the education and health care and housing and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina, and a whole host of things that the Republicans tend to ignore because the rich people that the Republicans represent already have that. They are turning their backs on the children and the middle class by capriciously and recklessly giving away our Federal revenues to the very richest in this country, and that is obscene. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Leader Pelosi for appointing me to this conference committee, and I rise in support of this motion to instruct. I strongly believe tax cuts are unnecessary, irresponsible, and morally reprehensible at the present time. If allowed in the room, as Democrats rarely are these days, I will work hard on the conference committee to make sure that any tax cuts adopted be targeted to the middle-class rather than to millionaires. I will argue for fiscal responsibility. I will insist with my colleagues in the Senate that the tax reconciliation bill protect middle-class families from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I will work to strike the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts that benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the hard working many. In short, I will fight for Americans the President in his budget left behind. The President in the document released Monday clearly illustrates the course he prefers for tax reconciliation--more tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of vital domestic programs on which many Americans depend. The President wants to cut Medicare by more than $100 billion, eliminate Social Security benefits for many older children whose parents have died, and severely cut state funding for child care. His proposal to expand Health Savings Accounts takes direct aim at the more than 160 million workers and their families who have job-based health coverage. These cuts aren't necessary. Neither are the $21 billion in extensions of capital gains and dividend tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans put forth by Republicans in the House in their ill-conceived tax reconciliation bill. A vote against this motion to instruct is a vote against working families and in favor of millionaires. Voters won't forget that in November. I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will bring some sanity back to prescription drug marketing, and help bring down the astronomical costs of prescription drugs. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act will force manufacturers to educate physicians instead of spending billions of dollars wining and dining them. As Congress begins to investigate its own ethics, we should also shed some light on the immoral relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians. Golf trips and lavish meals aren't just for Members of Congress. Though its hard to imagine, physicians may actually get more lobbying perks from the drug industry than Members of Congress do. For far too long, the pharmaceutical industry has jeopardized patient safety and inflated prescription drug prices by using tax-deductible dollars to underwrite their so-called ``physician education'' efforts. According to a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, there is a clear conflict of interest when doctors become too cozy with pharmaceutical companies. Drug companies annually spend about $10,000 on every single physician in the United States trying to entice doctors to prescribe their drugs. That adds up to nearly $8 billion in annual spending by drug companies marketing their products to physicians. It is not unusual for doctors to receive lavish meals, all expense paid ``educational'' trips to posh resorts, and lucrative consulting deals from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Every single dollar spent on these unnecessary gifts is tax deductible for the drug industry as a general business expense. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, pretended to discourage these improper marketing ploys by issuing conflict-of-interest guidelines in April 2002. After announcing the guidelines with fanfare, they then paid the American Medical Association to ``educate'' their members on these guidelines--that is, they gave doctors financial incentives to promote ethical guidelines that called for an end to financial incentives! It is obvious that PhRMA is not serious about ending the practice of giving financial incentives to doctors. Regardless of what PhRMA may say, the marketing tactics are still working. It is clear from the JAMA study that self-policing won't work. ``Although physician groups, manufacturers, and the federal government have instituted self-regulation of marketing . . . current controls will not satisfactorily protect the interests of patients.'' Doctors swayed to prescribe a certain drug because of their financial ties to drug companies put their own personal interest above the health and safety of their patients. This must stop now. My legislation will curb unnecessary spending physician gifts to the benefit of all patients. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act is a simple way to ensure pharmaceutical companies' behavior matches their rhetoric. This bill eliminates the tax-deduction that pharmaceutical companies currently receive for spending on physician gifts. The bill specifically exempts free drug samples, as that is often the only means by which uninsured patients can get medications. Unnecessary physician gifts from the drug industry unduly influence prescribing, increase drug prices and corporate profits, and endanger patients who get the wrong prescriptions for the wrong reasons. By removing incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lavish gifts of dubious public value on physicians, I hope that pharmaceutical companies will either redirect those funds toward research and development of lifesaving drugs or reduce the prices of prescription drugs for seniors and all Americans. The American Medical Student Association has endorsed the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. This group of future doctors--not yet beholden to the drug industry--recognizes the importance of this bill and the problems physician gifts cause in the doctor-patient relationship. I am pleased to submit their attached letter of support for inclusion in the Congressional Record. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. Prohibiting the drug industry from lavishing unnecessary gifts on physicians is a nonpartisan issue that should receive bipartisan support. If we can clean up Congress there is no reason we shouldn't clean up health care. It is time to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund marketing campaigns that put profits above patients. American Medical Student Association Foundation, Reston, VA, February 1, 2006. Hon. Pete Stark, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Stark: On behalf of the 60,000 physician-in-training members of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), we would like to offer our strong support for the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. The impact of pharmaceutical marketing on the professional behavior of physicians is very concerning to the future physicians of America. AMSA has long advocated for physicians to protect their independence from the pharmaceutical industry. We applaud the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act as a way to reduce the financial incentives for promoting drugs. The pharmaceutical companies spent $7.3 billion on detailing to doctors in 2004, more than twice what was spent in 1997. These gifts to physicians contribute to the high cost of medications for our patients. Taxpayers should not further subsidize this behavior through the deductibility of drug company promotions to physicians. Gifts from the pharmaceutical industry have an eroding effect on the doctor-patient relationship. Numerous studies have documented how those gifts influence the prescribing behavior of physicians, often in ways that deviate from the recommended treatment guidelines. However, the most obvious evidence that gifts influence physicians in the fact that drug companies would not spend billions of dollars on pens, meals and honorarium if it didn't work. Since 2002 AMSA has been entirely independent of funding from drug companies in our meetings and publications, and we have called for other physician groups to follow our lead. Last month the Journal of the American Medical Association published recommendations from leading academicians that academic medical centers--where physicians are trained-- should be entirely free of pharmaceutical representatives, industry sponsored meals and free samples. We applaud the institutions of medical education for taking this step. AMSA's PharmFree Campaign (www.amsa.org/prof/pharmfree.cfm) has been cited in major medical journals, making AMSA a leader in removing the pharmaceutical companies' influence in the practice of medicine. In 2005, AMSA launched the Counterdetailing Campaign where medical students teach physicians to use non-biased sources of information about prescription drugs. Time magazine and USA Today have featured AMSA and our Counterdetailing Campaign. Through AMSA, medical students continue to lead the drive to protect the doctor- patient relationship from outside influences. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act will remove the unhealthy influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine. AMSA is proud to support your efforts and leadership in this issue. If we can help in any way, please contact Chris McCoy, Legislative Affairs Director at 703-620-6600 x 211. Sincerely, Leana S. Wen, National President. Christopher P. McCoy, Legislative Affairs Director.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, last night, at President Bush's State of the Union address, two visitors were forced from the House Chamber. Cindy Sheehan and Rep. Bill Young's wife, Beverly. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct, Mrs. Young was not. What did they do wrong? They were each wearing T-shirts that the Capitol Police determined were ``protests''. Ms. Sheehan's shirt read: ``2245 Dead. How many more?'' Mrs. Young's shirt read: ``Support the Troops--Fighting for Freedom.'' Nothing in the House Rules prohibits the wearing of T-shirts or has limitations on what those shirts can have written on them. Both individuals insist they were not protesting, but simply wearing shirts that delivered important messages for them. What happened to them can only be described as Gestapo behavior. Each woman was forced to leave the House Gallery and Ms. Sheehan was then arrested and charged with unlawful conduct. It is my understanding that because President Bush was in the Chamber, control of the Chamber was ceded to him--or the Secret Service to be exact. Therefore, none of us should be surprised by what happened. Whenever and wherever President Bush speaks, he has the Secret Service sanitize and sterilize the audience. There are countless reports of people with T-shirts stating views that differ from the President being removed from his supposedly public appearances. What happened last night to Ms. Sheehan and Mrs. Young was un-American and undemocratic. That's why I am introducing a resolution calling on the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to report to Congress within 30 days making clear under what authority these two individuals were prosecuted and making recommendations to Congress so we can assure that nothing like this ever happens again. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important resolution. How can we allow the President to proclaim he is fighting for freedom abroad when he continually tramples our freedoms here at home? This is supposed to be the people's house. Therefore, the President should not be able to override our governance and make us part of his Gestapo regime.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unjust Republican budget that cuts funding for working class programs and does nothing to improve the U.S. deficit. ``Remember Pearl Harbor'' was a rallying cry to unite Americans in shared sacrifice to respond to a military attack on our Nation. In contrast, 9/11 will be remembered as a tragedy exploited by President Bush to divide Americans and place the financial burden of his ill- advised policies on working class Americans. President Bush and his Republican cronies have used this tragedy to justify an unnecessary war in Iraq and ensure that the wealthiest Americans contribute nothing to pay for it by giving them billions of dollars in tax cuts. As the wealthiest Republican party donors--like Halliburton--make billions from this failed war, the Republican budget sticks America's working families with the tab. This Republican budget cuts health care, child care, student loans, foster care payments, job training and aid to the elderly and people with disabilities in exchange for the Iraq war and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Not even the extreme poverty displayed on televisions across this country of Hurricane Katrina's victims has been able to stir compassion into the cold hearts of the President and his Republican cronies in Congress. This bill forces states to stop providing job training and vocational education programs for the poor and force millions of them into low-waged, dead end jobs with no health insurance or child care. In addition, many poor families will have to pay copays and deductibles for their health insurance on their incomes of less than $19,000 a year for a family of four. Instead of giving the poor a hand up, this bill puts a boot in their face to push them down. In true fashion, the Republican budget does take care of their rich lobbyist friends. For instance the Republicans decided to remove a provision that would have stopped taxpayers from overpaying HMOs participating in Medicare by $22 billion. Had that provision remained in, cuts to programs that help people--not corporations--could have been reduced by that level. Similar protections were given to the private lenders that provide student loans. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative John Boehner, met with these private lenders in December, who contribute handsomely to his campaigns, and said: ``Relax. Stay calm. 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.'' This budget clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party's corruption and cronyism causes real harm to average Americans. The next time a parent or former student has to pay extra for their student loan, or a senior citizen is forced to pay more for their health care, they should thank the Republican Party. You can be sure that the health insurance industry and private student lenders will be donating millions more to Republican campaigns to show their thanks. I urge my colleagues to vote against this corrupt and unjust bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Amelia Earhart Elementary School, in Alameda, California, on being named a 2005-2006 National Blue Ribbon School. Amelia Earhart Elementary School has been serving students in the Bay Farm Island community of Alameda, California, since 1979. The mission of the school is to inspire academic excellence, a passion for learning and respect for self and community. Amelia Earhart Elementary school was named a California Distinguished School in 2004 by the California Department of Education and a National ``No Child Left Behind'' Blue Ribbon School in 2005. The teachers, staff, administration, parents and community members work together to create a culture at the school that promotes a dynamic school-wide vision of academic success for all students. Amelia Earhart teachers, staff and administrators collaborate to use student data to drive informed decisions about instruction and provide a quality educational setting where all children can learn and excel. Amelia Earhart Elementary School is a national model of excellence and an outstanding example of the ideal that all students should have an equal educational opportunity in a supportive environment and that none should be forgotten. I join in congratulating Amelia Earhart Elementary School for its commitment to excellence, which has earned the school the well- deserved, nationally recognized, Blue Ribbon School honor.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The Republicans do not want any timetables to end the Iraq war because timetables would force the Bush administration to actually create a workable strategy to end the war. To cover for their lack of strategy and competence in Iraq, the Republicans are accusing others of creating artificial solutions to the quagmire they created. This is ironic since the Republicans have done nothing but provide artificial facts about the reasons to go to war, the progress of the war and the goals of the war. Just about everything President Bush and congressional Republicans have said about Iraq has been proven false. Initially, President Bush and congressional Republicans justified the Iraq War on artificial grounds. Here are just a few examples: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; Iraq bought enriched uranium from Niger; Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in 9/11; the intelligence about Iraq was accurate; and Congress had the same intelligence as the President about Iraq. Then, President Bush and congressional Republicans provided artificial reasons on the progress of the war. Here are just few examples: The cost of the Iraq war would be low; the United States could use Iraq oil to pay for most of Iraq's war costs; the United States would be welcomed as liberators; the United States has enough troops to keep the peace in Iraq; and the Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. President Bush and congressional Republicans have consistently created equally artificial landmarks about what defines victory in Iraq. Here are the latest artificial landmarks: Over 2 years ago, President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq on the USS Abraham Lincoln after the defeat of the Iraqi army; the first Iraq election in January 2005; the passing of the Iraq constitution in October 2005; and the second Iraq election held yesterday. With the passing of these events and the insurgency still going strong, President Bush and congressional Republicans are now creating another artificial definition of victory to justify the United States continued presence in Iraq. This resolution now defines victory as the United States staying in Iraq until Iraqis can provide their own security. After 2 years of training Iraqis, nobody can definitively tell the American people when this is going to happen. The GAO, think tanks and the military itself agree that Iraqi troop readiness is low, their loyalty and morale are questionable, there are sharp regional and ethnic divisions among the troop ranks, and their reported numbers overstate the real effectiveness of the troops. Such analysis does not exactly provide confidence that continuing U.S. training efforts will be successful or that our troops will be coming home anytime soon. I ask my colleagues how many young American men and women have to die for a war fought for artificial reasons and artificial goals? Our soldiers should not have to be killed while President George Bush fumbles around for a face-saving strategy to end the debacle of the Iraq war. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. It is time for America to end this mistake and bring our troops safely home.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act because border security without immigration reform is no more effective than an umbrella in a hurricane. Our immigration system is flooded with undocumented workers because there is a fundamental mismatch between the number of non-citizen workers needed in our economy and the number of visas available. In 2004, only 359 people were admitted in the category of ``unskilled shortage workers,'' and yet thousands of illegal immigrants can find enough work to warrant the dangerous border crossing. The solution is obvious: bring legal immigration in line with the supply of jobs not taken by U.S. citizens and there would be little incentive to break the law. There is bipartisan legislation--which I have co-sponsored--to do just that, and even though everyone from the ACLU to the Chamber of Commerce agrees that it is the best solution, it won't get a vote today because the Republican Party wants some red meat to throw to the xenophobic fringe. So they will tell you that they're fixing the system and protecting America by turning millions of workers into criminals and telling the Border Patrol that there's no difference between a student who drops a class in violation of his student visa and a known terrorist. They're both ``aggravated felons'' according to this bill. The Department of Homeland Security has no control over the border, and this bill suggests that expanding the mission will somehow solve the problem. It also contradicts American values and numerous international treaties by: Allowing immigration officials, without judicial review, to return asylum applicants on the next plane home if they find their story to be unconvincing; Requiring low-level immigration officials to expel, without a hearing, anyone found within 100 miles of the border believed to be a recently arrived undocumented immigrant; and Permitting indefinite detention of non-citizens who have not even been convicted of a crime, including those who have fled persecution or who cannot be deported because they would be tortured if returned. Saying that this policy will stop illegal immigration or meet our employment needs or fix the immigration bureaucracy is patently ridiculous. This is a political game that I refuse to play. I vote ``no''.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2830, which would be better titled the Republican Pension Destruction Act. American workers deserve much better than a bill that will reduce employee pensions and provide incentives for employers to break pension promises to employees. Recent bankruptcies in the airline industry shed a bright light on exactly what big corporations are up to. A few months ago, United Airlines dumped its flight attendant pension program onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)--a government organization meant to serve as an insurance policy for corporations who can no longer afford to meet their pension obligations. The PBGC, however, does not fund pensions at 100 percent, instead making a reduced payment to retired employees. As a result, tens of thousands of United employees, past and present, will receive smaller pension payments than they deserve. Unbelievably, in the same bankruptcy proceedings United Airline's CEO Glen Tilton was allowed to keep his $4.5 million pension. This is unacceptable, and the bill offered today does nothing to prevent CEOs from opening these golden parachutes while their employees are forced to take a reduction in their benefits. I've heard from hundreds of constituents on this issue. I can't say it any better than this former United employee from Hayward, CA who made the following statement during an e-hearing I have been co-hosting regarding the United Airlines crisis. ``I worked for United Airlines 35 years as a mechanic. Two years ago I retired with the promise that my pension was safe. If I lose a big chunk of pension I will have to sell my house and take my almost blind wife to another state where it's cheaper to live. Away from our doctors and family. I am not able to work anymore--physically unable--can you help us?'' We could help United employees and the retirement security of millions of Americans by passing real pension reform, but Republicans would rather destroy pensions instead of protecting them. When Democrats offered legislation to fix the pension solvency issue by protecting retirees and forcing CEOs to be held accountable, the Republican Majority wouldn't bring it up for a vote because it could have passed. Sadly, this is just one more example of Republicans siding with corporate campaign donors instead of working Americans. The list of problems associated with this bill is seemingly endless. The PBGC itself says its own ability to cover pensions will decrease by $2.5 billion under this bill. The Republican bill does nothing to protect airline employees. And in a final slap in the face to hardworking taxpayers, the bill adds $71 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, because Republicans refuse to be fiscally responsible and pay for their reforms. This Republican pension bill undermines retirement security and puts the once guaranteed pension benefits of millions of hard working Americans in jeopardy. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act conference report. I would be violating my Oath to uphold the Constitution if I voted to unravel the very freedoms for which we're supposedly fighting. The PATRIOT Act criminalizes speech, protest and assembly while it removes the right to due process and a search warrant. For example, the formerly bedrock principle that government cannot spy on you unless it provides strong evidence of wrongdoing to a judge no longer exists in America. As a ``compromise'' in this bill, Americans can now talk to a lawyer when the FBI sends them a National Security Letter. These letters demand their medical, business or Internet records, and it is nearly impossible to get the request blocked. Madam Speaker, there is no room for compromise in the Bill of Rights. If the FBI wants to know what Web sites I visit, they should justify it to a judge beforehand just like anyone else. With 30,000 of these National Security Letters going out every year, up from 300 before the PATRIOT Act was enacted, this is much more than just an academic argument. While no amount of success in the war on terror could justify the PATRIOT Act, it is especially tragic that we have little to show for 5 years of police-state tactics. The American people might be surprised to know that the median sentence for people convicted in terrorist investigations over the last 5 years was just 11 months. Most were convicted on technicalities having nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. In other words, the war on terrorism is just an irrelevant excuse for the expanded power of government to find out what books you buy, send undercover agents to your community group meetings, or search your home without a warrant. The PATRIOT Act is a war on liberty to create a false sense of security. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this underhanded ploy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the newer, but not better, Labor-HHS-Education appropriations conference report. Less than a month ago, the Members of this House rightfully defeated the previous version of this conference bill. Unfortunately, the Republican Majority did not get the message that Americans do not want Congress to cut $1.5 billion in critical programs. Like their previous bill, the Republicans continue their assault on health care programs. Even with nearly 46 million uninsured Americans, 800,000 of whom were added last year alone, the Republicans provide virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond those approved last year. They also propose cutting grants for immunizing children, responding to disease outbreaks and improving care for people with chronic diseases. Unbelievably, the Republicans did not stop there. Just one year after failing to have enough flu vaccine available and with the impending pandemic of avian flu, this bill cuts $100 million of funding for flu preparedness. Also, just one day after President Bush acknowledged that the current Medicare prescription drug benefit was confusing, this bill ensures that help will be even more difficult to come by. It cuts by $60 million the funding used to pay for helping seniors' choosing their new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Cuts were not limited to health care programs. This bill also cuts No Child Left Behind funding, education technology programs and special education programs. The Education for the Disadvantaged Program receives the smallest increase it has ever received in 8 years, negatively affecting 3.1 million low-income children. It is no wonder Republicans pushed so hard to privatize Social Security earlier this year. With the poorly educated workforce the Republicans are surely creating, there may be too few highly-trained workers to pay into Social Security to take care of my Republican colleagues and me in our retirement. Beyond education, this bill will literally leave people out in the cold. Consumers are expected to pay 44 percent more for natural gas and 24 percent more for home heating oil this winter, yet Republicans failed to increase funding for programs that provide home heating assistance for low-income seniors and children. There are, regrettably, many more worthwhile programs the Republicans have targeted. Programs to train workers for high skill, high paying jobs are cut $125 million; job search assistance is cut $89 million; state unemployment insurance and employment service offices are cut $245 million eliminating help for 1.9 million people. The International Labor Affairs Bureau, tasked with protecting American workers from being undercut by child and slave labor abroad, is being cut $20 million. Based on the Republican efforts to cut employment services, you'd never know this Administration has overseen the lowest rate of job growth since Herbert Hoover. America can do better than a bill that cuts education, health care and labor programs especially while Republicans work to propose tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. This bill clearly shows the misguided priorities of the Republican Majority. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this harmful and dishonorable bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Fremont, California's 50th anniversary. Fremont is the largest city in the 13th Congressional District. When Fremont incorporated in 1956, it had a population of approximately 22,000 residents. Today, Fremont residents number over 210,000, nearly 10 times the population of 50 years ago. The Ohlone people and their ancestors had occupied Fremont for thousands of years when Spanish priests arrived from Mexico and founded Mission San Jose in 1797. After Mexico won independence from Spain in the early 1800s, an appointed administrator divided the mission lands into four large tracts known as Rancho del Agua Caliente, Rancho Arroyo de la Alameda, Rancho Portero de los Cerritos and Mission San Jose. John C. Fremont arrived in the 1840s to map a trail through Mission Pass. California's admission to the United States and the Gold Rush stimulated further migration to the area, attracting people from all parts of the world. By 1853, the communities of Mission San Jose, Centerville, Niles, Irvington and Warm Springs had formed themselves into Washington Township. The City of Fremont officially came into existence on January 23, 1956, when citizens of these communities voted to incorporate their town to form a single city. Fremont is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse cities in the United States. Over 137 languages are spoken; its residents come from all 50 states within the United States as well as 155 countries throughout the world. The celebration of Fremont's 50th anniversary promises to be as unique as Fremont itself. Celebrate Fremont's mission is to enhance the quality of life in the Fremont Community, now and for generations to come by serving all segments of the community by promoting the vitality of nonprofit organizations, fostering volunteerism and serving as a vital resource that promotes and enhances community activities including but not limited to those civic, cultural, and educational activities that celebrate the past, present and future of Fremont. I join the City of Fremont's civic leaders and its residents in celebrating Fremont's 50th anniversary. The motto for the celebration is ``creating a legacy for tomorrow by cherishing our past and connecting with our present.'' This celebration offers the city an historic opportunity to celebrate its past, while uniting its diverse community and historic districts around a shared vision for the future. Happy Birthday Fremont and best wishes for continued success as a model city.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, throughout this year, myself, my colleagues, and our staff have been bombarded by physician lobbyists desperate to prevent a 4.4 percent reduction in Medicare payments scheduled to go into effect in January 2006. While I can empathize with their desire for more money--who doesn't want a raise?--I think it's time that we quell this fevered pitch with a dose of reality and a few facts. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act today. Without Congressional intervention, physician fees will decrease 4.4 percent next year and an estimated 5 percent reduction for many years thereafter. This is due to what is widely agreed upon to be a flawed formula in the payment system known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). That being said, it is important to note that even if the cuts go into effect next year, total spending for physician services would more than likely increase. This is because physicians have been steadily providing more services, and more intensive services, in recent years. While some growth may be desirable--for example providing additional preventive services--data show that much of the current growth has no clinical benefit or may even be harmful. Although I agree that our current SGR mechanism is flawed, I have serious reservations about repealing it without putting something in its place that will account for the increase in volume and intensity of physician services in Medicare. At the same time physician groups and members of Congress have been focused on the SGR, other issues with the physician fee schedule have emerged, including the accuracy of pricing for primary care services. These issues, although less well known, are critical to maintaining beneficiary access to high quality care. It has been 14 years since the current reimbursement system was implemented. It is time for Congress to receive an evaluation of how well this system is meeting its goals. In our effort to find a permanent solution to the SGR, we should not miss an opportunity to address these underlying issues. Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act calls on the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) to conduct a comprehensive review of the physician payment system, including recommendations on the accuracy of Medicare pricing and alternatives to the SGR. To allow time for MedPAC to complete their work, the bill provides for a 1.5 percent increase for the next 2 years for physicians. The bill also provides two important additional components. First, the bill protects beneficiaries from Part B premium increases that would otherwise result from the physician update. Second, it repeals the so-called ``45 percent trigger,'' which was created in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to restrict Medicare's general revenue support. If this trigger is left in place, physician increases will force a counter-productive, cyclical effort to cut Medicare spending. Given problems with potentially unjustifiable increases in volume and intensity of physician services, coupled with other perverse financial incentives in the system, repeal of the SGR is irresponsible and unaffordable. Likewise, the status quo is unacceptable. It is clear that problems with the physician fee schedule go far beyond the difficulties of the SGR, and Congress needs expert guidance to find solutions. Congress has become quite proficient at short term solutions to Medicare physician payment problems. Unfortunately, this near-sighted view comes at the expense of other Medicare changes that could directly improve benefits or decrease costs for Medicare beneficiaries. This bill lays out a plan for a permanent solution enabling physicians to count on fair annual payment adjustments. It's better for physicians, patients and the American taxpayer. Numerous proposals have been introduced to find solutions to these payment problems and such a fix is included in the Senate version of the pending budget reconciliation legislation. The concept of pay for performance is also heavily promoted as a potential solution, though everyone should admit that it would take many years for it to be implemented and prove effective. I think it's imperative we ask the experts for their recommendations before acting, while at the same time ensuring access is maintained and beneficiaries are protected. The Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2005 will provide the intellectual foundation to enable Congress to enact a thoughtful, permanent solution for the physician reimbursement system by 2008. I urge my colleagues to consider this approach as the best alternative to ensure that physicians are appropriately paid and beneficiaries are protected.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4297, yet another tax break for the richest among us at the expense of those who have the least. The Republicans want to cut taxes by $94.5 billion. How do they pay for these cuts? Before Thanksgiving they voted to cut $50 billion from programs that help the poorest Americans. The conclusion is obvious: They are paying for the tax cuts for wealthy Americans by cutting programs for working Americans. Under the tax break package presented today, a family of four surviving on $30,000 a year will get an average of $50 extra in their tax return next April. Meanwhile, a millionaire will gain an extra $51,000. Lets just see what kind of lifestyle enhancement these tax cuts can buy: The $30,000 working family of four can use the extra $4.16 they receive each month to buy any one of the following: 1.75 gallons of gas; a half-pound of cheese; one gallon of orange juice; two loaves of white bread; three grapefruits; or for those indebted to the NRA, 6 bullets for a .44 Magnum. People making over $1 million get a tax break of $4,250 a month, that they could use to purchase one of the following: leases on four BMW 750i sedans; 17 iPod nano's; a 50 inch flat screen plasma TV; a five karat diamond tennis bracelet; or a 10-day European cruise. Or, if they wanted to, they could pay the monthly health insurance premiums for four families. If the Republicans want to cut taxes, they should pay for it. We could save billions by pulling our troops out of Iraq. That could pay for Katrina relief and stop cuts to important programs for working families. Instead of handing out holiday tax breaks to rich Republican campaign donors, we should be rolling back Bush's tax breaks for millionaires to better fund important programs like Medicaid and student loans. Also, Republicans need to drop the ``fiscal conservative'' moniker. These tax breaks combined with last month's cuts on programs for those in need will rack up $44 billion in new debt. The fiscal disciplines of the Republican party apparently means we drive our nation into debt and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. The numbers don't lie. The Republican priority is tax breaks for the rich, nothing more. They will cut programs for the poor and increase the deficit by billions of dollars to get their way. I urge all my colleagues to stop this insane fiscal policy by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a colleague nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature for his best selling book ``The Myth of Free Trade,'' also an author who understands that the King of Bahrain was not elected. I do not care what kind of a democracy it is, kings do not get elected. And if my good friend from Wisconsin had suggested that we could take our troops out of Iraq immediately and substitute this cockamamie free trade agreement, I would join with him in that, but I am not sure that that is what he thought.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the first thing is, here we go again. If we are rewarding an ally for helping us in Iraq, where I understand there are no Bahranian troops, but we have got a Navy base. Well, if we are paying off for a Navy base, how about Cuba? Why do we not throw these guys in? I think we have got a big base in Cuba where we are torturing prisoners, so why not toss them in if that is the reason for going into this free trade agreement. The problem with the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is the same ones that we have had with Australia, Morocco, CAFTA. And the administration keeps sending the same flawed arguments and agreements. I have supported trade. But it has got to be fair before it can be free. And unfortunately, this administration does not see it that way. Like our recent free trade agreements, it fails to promote basic labor rights, environmental standards, and is a payback or a sell out to PhRMA for letting the pharmaceutical industry write into these agreements wording that extends their patents and extends the time before generic medicines are available. Now, it may be that Bahrain is somewhat richer than other nations and can wait longer, but it is a bad policy. You are going to hear today about Bahrain's labor rights. That is great. But it does not hold them responsible for maintaining those improvements. It is sort of enforce your own laws, and Bahrain could change those laws tomorrow. The same hollow standards apply to environmental protections. They could be changed. My 10-year-old son wishes that he could have enforce his own bed time. But that is not the way it works, Mr. Speaker. Until the core international labor organizations standards and strong environmental protections are included in the text of the agreement, we should all vote against these free trade agreements. If you trust the administration to tell you the truth, maybe you could vote for it then. But I think recent experience in the war, in torture, and other instances have shown us that those assertions are subject to question by reasonable people. So this agreement, like many other bills, helps Big Pharma. It does not do much for labor. It does nothing to assure us that we will have environmental safety in Bahrain should they, God help us, ever run out of oil. And it seems to me that we are giving away a lot of our American rights. And I urge any of you just to remember the disagreement we had many years ago over China. And many of us said, the minute you give permanent most favored nation to China, you will never again be able to negotiate with them. Look at the footage when our delegation was in China and the hands that went in front of the cameras as China prohibits free and open press coverage of what goes on there. Until we are ready to get fair exchange for these free trade agreements, we are selling our American heritage. I urge a no vote on the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.