Pete Stark

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, 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.

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

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs buys drugs for about half the market price, saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars. It does this by insisting on the best price offered to other customers, by negotiating for further discounts, and by moving market share through the use of a formulary or preferred drug list. The formulary is an excellent one that provides Veterans with the drugs they need that are safe and effective. This formulary is under attack by `think tanks' that may receive a lot of money from drug companies. PhRMA wants to convince the American public that, like the children of Lake Woebegon, all drugs are above average and should be readily available to be marketed to all Americans at whatever price the companies want to charge. The fact is, most drugs--about 80 to 85 percent in recent years--are me-too drugs: copies of stuff already on the market that bring little or nothing new to the fight against diseases. There is no need to cover all these drugs on a formulary. Rather, by using a formulary to list only the safest, most effective drugs, a buyer can obtain huge discounts from the companies. An exceptions and appeals process can ensure that in those rare cases where a non-formulary drug is needed, it will be available. Listing all new drugs on a formulary can also be dangerous, because many drugs are approved after only six months or so of testing on a few thousand people or less. As doctor and Senator Frist has said, there should be a 2 year moratorium on the mass advertising of new drugs, because we really don't know how safe they are. Vioxx and Celebrex are classic examples of drugs that added little new but have unacceptable risks. The VA formulary never listed Vioxx and Celebrex. Good for them. Vioxx alone has been estimated to have caused up to 40,000 unnecessary deaths and another 100,000 heart attacks or strokes. But the Manhattan Institute has just published a paper by a Frank R. Lichtenberg who says he is a Professor at Columbia University's School of Business. The thesis of the paper is that because the VA does not immediately cover every drug, like Vioxx and Celebrex, veterans are starting to die earlier. The Professor includes in his paper one of the most hilarious, or saddest examples of sophistry I've ever seen. He plots on a graph the life expectancy at birth of all males, and shows it rising from 72 years in 1991 to 74.5 years in 2002. He also plots veterans' life expectancy, which rises from about 77.6 years to 80.5 years by 2004. But then he does something that, if he were a student, would earn an ``F''. He superimposes the two life expectancy lines in different colors on the same chart but uses different vertical lines to represent the two different populations. The Veterans' axis on the left starts at 77.0 years and rises to 81.5 years. The life expectancy at birth of all males axis on the right side of the chart starts at 70.5 and rises to 75.0. By doing this, he makes it appear to the quick scanner or casual reader (i.e., most of us), that Veterans are dying sooner than the rest of American males. Instead, Veterans are living 6 years longer. The Professor deserves an ``F''--and so does the drug industry for trying to libel the VA drug system. We need a system like the VA's for Medicare. It would save us hundreds of billions of dollars in the years to come--and save us from the Vioxx's of the future.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Newark, CA's extraordinary city manager, Alberto ``Al'' T. Huezo. After a long and illustrious career, he will retire on December 30, 2005. He was hired by the city on July I, 1974 and promoted to the position of city manager on July 1, 1996. For the last 9 years, City Manager Huezo has guided Newark in an exemplary fashion. He defines his position as city manager as ``the chief executive officer of an organization that provides municipal services.'' He emphasizes the word services and describes his role also as ``an ambassador for the organization, someone who actively markets and promotes that organization to people on the outside, potential customers and certainly customers within.'' During his tenure as city manager he never lost his focus on service. When asked how he would like to be remembered, Mr. Huezo responded ``as a man who didn't take himself too seriously, someone who did his job with passion and gusto.'' Among his legacies to the city is the development of Newark's Silliman Center, a modern multi-purpose community center, and maintaining city services through difficult fiscal issues and challenges. He points to the proudest moment of his career, as city manager, as being part of a team that dealt effectively with the nationally publicized Eddie ``Gwen'' Araujo homicide in Newark. This tragedy put the city under a microscope and communities acted with dignity and as a tightly knit group to face the challenge together. Referring to his legacy, Mr. Huezo points to the people that he has promoted or brought into the city's organization and the key people in place to lead Newark forward. I join the city of Newark and its residents in wishing Al Huezo all the best upon his well deserved retirement. He has been a trusted public servant and we shall miss his warm personality and the genuine, consistent caring he expressed when carrying out his duties to make Newark a model city. Thank you, Al Huezo, for making a positive difference with your commitment to excellence.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Newark, CA's Mayor Dave Smith. His recent re-election makes him the second longest serving mayor in the country as he embarks on his 28th consecutive year of service. Mayor Smith began his career in public service as the Fremont chapter president of the Jaycees, a fraternal business group. He then ran for, and was elected to, the Newark city council in 1976. Two years later he was elected Mayor, where he has remained ever since. During his tenure, Newark has become a model for the country to follow. It has a $35 million surplus, a low crime rate, beautiful parks and well-maintained streets. Newark city council meetings are efficient and exemplify Mayor Smith's ability to build consensus among the city's leadership. He has steered Newark through the dot-com boom and bust, avoiding the common pitfalls that plague many other cities. His plans for managed growth have allowed Newark to thrive. Also, he is a respected governmental figure--not an easy trick for a Republican representing a city that is registered 55 percent Democratic. Smith's nickname, Mr. Newark, is well deserved. With an easy style prone to practical jokes and trombone solos, he has become an accomplished politician, a beloved public servant and a committed member of his community. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dave Smith's dedicated commitment to the city he serves. His ability to lead Newark, one of the jewels of the East Bay, is unquestionable and I for one hope he continues to serve for another 28 years.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, most Americans watching their televisions looked on in horror at the extent of the poverty and desperation among the victims of Hurricane Katrina. President Bush and congressional Republicans apparently looked at these pictures with indifference and disdain. I am forced to believe this because their budget bill--the so-called Deficit Reduction Act--aims to cut more than $50 billion from nearly every poverty program this country offers for the sake of later passing approximately $60 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Sadly, their recent actions fit neatly with their track record. Since the Republicans gained control of both the White House and Congress in 2001, 1.7 million more Americans live in poverty, average median income has declined $1,700, and the minimum wage--which has not been increased since 1997--has its lowest purchasing power since 1990. This budget continues the Republican trend of failing the American people in every possible way. The Republican budget requires poor mothers with children under age 6 to double their weekly work hours from 20 to 40 in order to remain eligible for job training and vocational education. Yet, it fails to provide $10.5 billion for childcare funding which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would be needed for mothers to afford to work the longer hours and maintain their benefits. Disgracefully, their proposals don't stop there. The Republican budget leads to $24 billion less in child support payments. It also cuts $14.3 billion from Federal student aid programs so the average student borrowing for college will now pay an additional $5,800. It cuts health care for disabled and impoverished people, aid for abused and neglected foster children, financial assistance to the aged and disabled poor and food subsidies. However, they don't cut everything. In true Republican, let-them-eat- cake fashion, the Republican budget does have one program to help those in need. The bill provides two $40 coupons to people so that they can buy converter boxes for their television sets, so they can watch digital television. Together, America can do better than trading crisp, clean digital television for food, health care and education. I urge my colleagues to vote against this disgrace and not pay for tax cuts for millionaires on the backs of the poor.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican stunt and their efforts to embarrass a decorated Vietnam War Veteran. Yesterday, Congressman John Murtha, a Democrat with impeccable military credentials and an honored military record, suggested that U.S. troops leave Iraq at the earliest practicable date. Today, I cosponsored that resolution. His knowledgeable and respected voice joins the loud and clear pleas of the Out of Iraq Caucus--of which I am a proud member. His voice joins former generals, intelligence officers, Presidents, and mothers and fathers across America who know that we are mired in a war that cannot be won and to truly honor our troops, we need to bring them home. Unfortunately, tonight the Republican leadership refused to bring Mr. Murtha's resolution to a vote. I can only presume because Mr. Murtha's resolution made too much sense. Instead, the Republican leadership is offering a sham-resolution in an attempt to embarrass and insult a member of Congress who has served his country nobly in uniform-- something most of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know nothing about. Perhaps the Republican Leadership's time would be better spent in an effort to finish the business of this country instead of wasting hours attempting to besmirch the record of a decorated Vietnam War Veteran and demagogue an issue that demands honest consideration.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of former Representative Edward Roybal who passed away on October 24, 2005. He is survived by his wife, Lucille Beserra Roybal, and his three children, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Lillian Roybal-Rose an Edward Roybal, Jr. Edward Ross Roybal was born on February 10, 1916 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and then moved to the Boyle Heights area of Los Angeles at an early age. He began his political career as many of us did--by losing his first run for office. In reaction to that defeat, he founded the Los Angeles Community Service Organization (CSO) with the goal of mobilizing Los Angeles's Mexican-Americans against discrimination in housing, employment and education. In 1949, following a groundswell of support from minority communities, Mr. Roybal was elected to the L.A. City Council, the first Hispanic to serve on the city council in more than a century. In 1962, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives representing an LA District that changed several times during his 30- year tenure in the House. At the time of his election, he became the first Hispanic from California to serve in Congress since 1879. He was one of the founding members--and became the first chair--of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC). During his time in Congress, he ascended to the powerful Appropriations Committee, where he was an outspoken advocate for funding for education, civil rights, and health programs. He was one of the first members of Congress to press for HIV/AIDS research funding. He was a true advocate for senior citizens as well. He served on the Select Committee on Aging--and was the Chairman from 1985 to 1993. He worked tirelessly for the rights of senior citizens and was most proud of his efforts to protect and expand the Meals on Wheels program. Upon his retirement from Congress in 1992, Representative Roybal was honored to see his daughter--and our colleague--Lucille Roybal-Allard elected to Congress to represent the newly-created 33rd District, which included a portion of the same district that Rep. Ed Roybal had represented in Congress for 30 years. After leaving Congress, Ed continued to advocate for those he cared most about and founded a non-profit research agency, now called the Edward R. Roybal Institute for Applied Gerontology, at the California State University--Los Angeles campus. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) honored Rep. Roybal's support for public health programs by naming its main campus in Atlanta in his honor and awarding him its Champion of Prevention Award. Rep. Roybal was a tireless advocate for the less fortunate. He served his country with honor both in uniform and in this Congress. His contributions will be remembered and celebrated; his death will be deeply mourned. On behalf of Congress, I extend my deepest sympathies to those he loved and those who loved him. He had a rich life and we can best honor him by striving to live up to his example of how best to serve.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, Harriet Burgess, President and founder of American Land Conservancy. For the past 20 years, Harriet, who presently resides in Inverness, California, has applied her consummate skill in building consensus among legislators, government agencies, landowners and environmental groups for the conservation of public lands. Her list of acquisition accomplishments while Vice President of the Trust for Public Land reveals a national landscape of treasured sites. She saw a need for a non-profit land acquisition agency that would tackle the most challenging and difficult projects. She founded the American Land Conservancy to rescue irreplaceable environmental acreage from imminent development. Through her talent and perseverance she has kept intact precious tracts of land from California's Topanga Canyon to the Sierra Nevada and has been a matchmaker in arranging swaps and purchases of private lands for public uses from the Malibu coast to the Columbia River Gorge. One transaction in Nevada involved 44 different property swaps. She has also masterminded the acquisition of lands along the upper Sacramento River and the North Fork American. She played a role in the addition of a one thousand plus acre parcel to the San Francisco Bay Area's renowned Gate National Recreation Area. Harriet Burgess grew up in Xenia, Ohio where her fondest memory is wandering through the forest looking for wildflowers. But she didn't get into protecting public space until after her children were grown, when she volunteered to rewrite the zoning ordinance for Fairfax County, Virginia. During her time in Virginia, she was an exemplary member of my legislative staff in Washington, DC. After a divorce in 1978, she moved to California and headed the western regional office for the Trust for Public land before founding the American Land Conservancy in 1990. The Conservancy, under Harriet's direction, has become a potent force in safeguarding California's most precious open spaces. Through sheer persistence and tenacity Harriet has time and again brought seemingly out-of-reach projects within grasp, helping local communities realize their dreams of protected land for open space. Harriett Burgess has been a tireless and highly effective advocate of wilderness and recreational open space protection. Her list of accomplishments will be felt by generations. As friends gather on November 16, 2005 to pay tribute to Harriet's extraordinary contributions, I join them in thanking her for the fruits of her efforts. We are grateful for her tenacity and perseverance to protect our precious lands.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, which bars local governments from using eminent domain for economic development. The urban renewal of the last decade has benefited every part of the country and many cities in the 13th Congressional District. The very purpose of government is to make tough decisions that benefit the community, and I cannot support Congress taking away this essential government function. This bill would also extend the Federal Government ever further into matters in which it doesn't belong--in this case--real estate planning and development. City councils are elected and empowered to make the difficult choice when private property should be utilized for the good of the community. Congress cannot and should not tie the hands of locally elected leaders to do what they believe is in the best interest of their communities. If those local officials make the wrong choices, voters will no doubt respond.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague and neighbor Ms. Barbara Lee to pay tribute to Bonnie Dettmer who is being honored as the 2005 Castro Valley Business Person of the Year in Castro Valley, California. Bonnie Dettmer died recently and her admirers felt it a fitting tribute to honor her as the 2005 Castro Valley Businessperson of the Year. She was the Castro Valley Chamber of Commerce's top administrator for twenty years and worked tirelessly, during her long tenure as Executive Director, to make Castro Valley a better place to live and work. She achieved many milestones as Executive Director of the Castro Valley Chamber of Commerce. Her noteworthy accomplishments include personal outreach to businesses in Castro Valley to increase membership, serving as liaison to the Castro Valley Sheriff's Department and membership on the Sheriff's Advisory Committee, working to negotiate a water pipeline installation through Castro Valley that proved to be least disruptive to the business and community at large, honoring over 380 students for awards as Student Citizens of the Year at the Chamber's annual luncheon, leading an Anti-Racism march in Castro Valley and uniting the community to denounce bigotry and racism, and organizing hundreds of volunteers to successfully manage community events, such as the Fall Festival, Volunteer Recognition Night, and Citizen of the Year. She is a recipient of the Rotary Paul Harris Fellowship Award for ``Service Above Self'', an award from the Private Industry Council and a Public Education Service Award for her commitment to the Student Citizen of the Year Program. Friends and admirers describe Ms. Dettmer's love for Castro Valley. She would work her regular 40 hours a week and then add another 20 to 30 hours on nights and weekends. She left a special mark on any activity in which she was involved. The Business Person of the Year Award will be presented in her memory at the Castro Valley Chamber's annual luncheon on November 1, 2005. We join the community in honoring her memory by designating the award to this well deserved, exemplary community leader. We shall miss Bonnie Dettmer. She leaves a legacy of accomplishments that will continue to be felt for many years to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act because it would hurt all Americans by exposing them and their attorneys to motions intended to harass them and slow down the legal process, a tactic often used by wealthy defendants in civil rights trials. Prior to 1993, defendants in civil rights cases would file a crushing number of motions alleging frivolous actions on the part of the plaintiff in a blatant attempt to delay the case. In 1993, the rules were changed and judges were empowered to determine sanctions for frivolous lawsuits on a case-by-case basis, removing this delay tactic from wealthy defendants. However, since the Republican Party doesn't think judges have any business deciding how to run their courts, they want to repeal this change and revert back to the days of delayed justice. This is one of many reasons why the U.S. Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, opposes this bill. Further, H.R. 420 is unconstitutional because it forces every State court to implement new court rules and procedures, even though Congress has no jurisdiction over State courts. Justice delayed is justice denied and I am proud to stand up for our Constitution, judicial system, and all Americans by voting no on this bill. If that makes me a friend of the trial lawyers, then I proudly stand with the brilliant litigators Thurgood Marshall and Abraham Lincoln in opposition to political hacks like Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Representative Ben Cardin of the Third Congressional District of Maryland and Representative Steny Hoyer of the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland today to bring to our colleagues' attention an excellent article that appeared in the Inside Annapolis Magazine this month about a family business in Galesville, MD. The business, Smith Brothers, Inc., is an excellent example of American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. We are proud to know Kenneth Smith and his son Jeff Smith and would like to congratulate them on the recent acknowledgement of their value to the community. America needs more people like the Smiths, who have a can-do attitude and are willing to work hard to excel. We have attached a copy of the article, which explains some of the history of the company and family and how their attitude has helped them in business and life. Smith Brothers: Building on a Firm Foundation (By Kathy Bergren Smith) When the makers of the upcoming romantic comedy starring Matthew MacConaughney and Sarah Jessica Parker came to Maryland scouting locations and resources, one of their first stops was in the quiet village of Galesville; just south of Annapolis. The film includes multiple scenes of frolicking dolphins and the marine coordinators needed a way to transport the radio-controlled ``stand-ins'' as well as millions of dollars worth of camera and sound equipment around the Bay. They found what they were looking for at Smith Brothers, an eighty-seven-year-old family business that provides tugboat and barge services for customers as diverse as Paramount Pictures, the Lincoln Tunnel and the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The company's extensive fleet of charter equipment is the largest between Baltimore and Norfolk. Marine contractors rent Smith Brothers equipment to build piers and bulkheads, dredge channels and shoot off fireworks. The story of how Smith Brothers became the ``one stop shop'' for tugs, barges, cranes, anchors and chains goes back . . . way back . . . and is best told by the company's president, Kenneth Smith, the last of the Smith Brothers. ``Our family had been here in Galesville for several generations when my older brothers began the business in 1918,'' says Smith. Indeed, an occupancy notice dated 1952 is tacked to the bulletin board in the office on Tenthouse Creek, notes that the premises has been legal since 1862. Back then, the Smiths, like most of their neighbors in southern Anne Arundel County, were oystermen. But they were also entrepreneurs, operating a lime kiln which reduced the oyster shells into fertilizer for other major industry of the area, farming. In 1916, the eldest of the seven Smith Brothers, J. Edward ``Eddy'' and Nelson began to freight oysters by truck to Washington's dandies. ``Eddy and Nelson made a great team,'' recalls the much younger Kenneth, who is now ninety. He and his older sister Agnes, are the only siblings of the original nine that remain. Agnes, a former post-mistress in Galesville, at 101 still serves as a social and historical center for the community. Kenneth comes to work each day and remains active in the business. ``After World War I, when Eddy came home, he and Nelson and Captain Oscar Hartge began to build docks around the river, that is how they got started,'' says Kenneth Smith. As the city dwellers from Washington began to take drives in their new automobiles, the face of bay country began to change. Boarding houses and marinas were built to accommodate the new tourist trade and summer homes with docks sprang up along the West River. Pile driving overtook oystering as the Smiths' primary occupation. Captain Oscar Hartge, a member of a family whose name is synonymous with yachting on the Bay, sold his portion of the business to his friends, the Smiths, for $1 to take a position as captain aboard a private yacht. Ultimately, six of the seven brothers and one close friend, Robert Leatherbury, became Smith Brothers, Inc. The brothers were very hard-working and quickly built a reputation as high quality contractors. Throughout the 20's and 30's taking meager salaries and putting every spare cent into the business, the brothers grew the company. World War II took Kenneth and many of the workers overseas, but when they returned, the business began to thrive. Crews worked on the land as well as the water, building bridges for the Baltimore Beltway (695), the West Virginia Turnpike and up and down the Eastern Shore. Many Annapolis waterfront landmarks were built on the firm foundation of Smith Brothers. A railway at Trumpy's was installed by Carroll Smith who forged a long-lasting relationship with the fabled boat builder. On the city dock, pilings under the Marriott were driven by Carroll's crew alongside other larger contractors. Bulkheading was built near what is now Fawcett's by the brothers. Kenneth remembers the unusual payment scheme developed for that project. ``That land was owned by Bert Spriggs (a car dealer) and when we finished up the bulkhead, one of my brothers said to him, ``Say, how about instead of paying us with a check we just pick out some new cars?'' and darned if he didn't go along with that,'' says Kenneth chuckling at the thought. ``Who would go along with that today?'' Today, there is a quiet dignity- to Kenneth Smith as he recalls the old times. He is a man who has spent well over half a century both as a crack crane operator and a respected businessman. Kenneth bought out his brothers one by one and today he and his son, Jeff, have moved the company in a new direction. ``Competition for the type of bridge building and pile driving we always did got very stiff in the late 80's,'' says Jeff Smith. He and his father made the tough decision to stop bidding and let the crews go. ``We had no alternative at the time,'' he says. There were also creative ways of dealing with overdue bills that would not fly today . . . like the time that the owner of a large vacation home in south county balked at paying for a pier built by Nelson and his crew. Before taking the rig back to Galesville, Nelson confronted the owner about payment. When the owner refused to pay, Nelson gave the signal to the crane operator to crank up the pile driver. He then positioned the crane to begin tearing out the pier. Kenneth cannot control his laughter as he recalls the man ``running down the pier waving a check!'' Instead of doing the contracting themselves, Kenneth and Jeff began to rent equipment to other contractors. Their six- acre construction yard in Galesville has gradually become a ``rent it'' center for those engaged in heavy construction. Jeff and his father have built an inventory of barges and tugboats and cranes, plus the intangible asset of Kenneth's vast experience. The tug and barge fleet has grown in size and scope and the Smith Brothers' red and white colors can be found from New York to Florida. Around the Bay, the newest addition to the fleet is the Megalodon, a 50' tugboat named for the prehistoric shark that roamed the local waters. Megalodon was the product of the latest Galesville collaboration between the Smiths and Hartges. Capt. Oscar Hartge's grandson, Preston, is the operations manager at Smith Brothers. When the company decided it was time to build a new tug, Preston took the project on with vigor. ``It has come full circle here, our families have both been part of the maritime history of this county and Jeff and I are both committed to continuing our legacy,'' says Hartge. Kenneth is moving into a supporting role at the yard, and he too is pleased to see the company continuing to thrive. ``You know, very few family businesses survive, all too often the hard work of one generation is squandered on young people, but the Smith Brothers philosophy has always been to work hard and not to ask anyone to do something you would not be willing to yourself. I see that same quality today here at the yard when Jeff and Preston are out there together arguing, it reminds me of the old days when the brothers would cuss and fuss and then go out and have dinner together.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, last night Ed Roybal passed away. He is survived by his wife, Lucille, and his three children: our colleague of course, Lucille Roybal-Allard; her sister, Lillian Roybal-Rose; and Ed, Jr. Ed was born in 1916, served in the military, served in the House here for 30 years. He was the first Hispanic from California to serve in Congress since 1879. Among his distinct honors, he was the founder and the first chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He was chairman of the Select Committee on Aging for a number of years and a great supporter of Meals on Wheels; and, of course, his great honor and joy was having his daughter succeed him in what was part of his district. On a personal note, I happened to talk with a lady who had been a page some years ago here in the House. She remembers Ed Roybal as a kind Member and as a very polite and distinguished Member. For all of us who pass the pages in the cloakroom, I think we all know when a page remembers that from a number of years ago, it goes a long way. We will miss him, and our heartfelt sympathy to Lucille, her family, and her mother. Last night, October 24, 2005, former Representative Edward Roybal died in Pasadena, California. He is survived by his wife, Lucille Beserra Roybal, and his three children, Representative Lucille Roybal- Allard, Lillian Roybal-Rose and Edward Roybal, Jr. Edward Ross Roybal was born on February 10, 1916 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and then moved to the Boyle Heights area of Los Angeles at an early age. After military service in World War II, he began his political career as many of us did--by losing his first run for office. In reaction to that defeat, he founded the Los Angeles Community Service Organization (CSO) with the goal of mobilizing Los Angeles's Mexican-Americans against discrimination in housing, employment and education. In 1949, following a groundswell of support from minority communities, Mr. Roybal was elected to the L.A. City Council, the first Hispanic to serve on the city council in more than a century. In 1962, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives representing an LA District that changed several times during his 30- year tenure in the House. At the time of his election, he became the first Hispanic from California to serve in Congress since 1879. He was one of the founding members--and became the first Chair--of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, CHC. During his time in Congress, he ascended to the powerful Appropriations Committee, where he was an outspoken advocate for funding for education, civil rights, and health programs. He was one of the first Members of Congress to press for HIV/AIDS research funding. He was a true advocate for senior citizens as well. He served on the Select Committee on Aging--and was the chairman from 1985 to 1993. He worked tirelessly for the rights of senior citizens and was most proud of his efforts to protect and expand the Meals on Wheels program. Upon his retirement from Congress in 1992, Representative Roybal was honored to see his daughter--and our colleague--Lucille Roybal-Allard elected to Congress to represent the newly-created 33rd Distirct, which included a portion of the same district that Representative Ed Roybal represented in Congress for 30 years. After leaving Congress, Ed continued to advocate for those he cared most about and founded a non-profit research agency, now called the Edward R. Roybal Institute for Applied Gerontology, at the California State University--Los Angeles campus. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, honored Representative Roybal's support for public health programs by naming its main campus in Atlanta in his honor and awarding him its ``Champion of Prevention'' Award. Representative Roybal was a tireless advocate for the less fortunate. He served his country with honor both in uniform and in this Congress. His contributions will be remembered and celebrated; his death will be deeply mourned. On behalf of Congress, I extend my deepest sympathies to those he loved and those who loved him. He had a rich life and we can best honor him by striving to live up to his example of how best to serve.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because I don't believe that giving gun makers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations special exemption from lawsuits makes our streets any safer. If this law had been in place, the families of victims of the DC-area sniper could never have held negligent suppliers accountable. In September 2004, eight victims received a settlement from the dealer that ``lost'' the snipers' assault rifle from its inventory, along with at least 238 other guns. The victims' families also received a settlement from the manufacturer who negligently supplied the dealer despite its record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Most importantly, as part of the settlement, the manufacturer agreed to instruct its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns. Since the National Rifle Association owns about two-thirds of the Congress, guns have fewer safety regulations than teddy bears. The American people can't look to Congress to protect them, so they have no choice but to turn to the courts. It's no surprise that this last resort will now be shut down out of deference to the almighty gun industry. As if this blatant pandering to an industry responsible for widespread violence and mayhem isn't bad enough, this bill also violates the fundamental right of every American to have their day in court. As soon as the President signs this bill into law, Americans will be able to sue the manufacturer of any product except for guns for death, injury, and any other kind of negligence. Congress, at the behest of the NRA, will close the courthouse doors to gun victims. I vote ``no'' on this bill because no industry, certainly not the gun industry, should have the right to conduct their business without the oversight of the judicial system.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act because I don't think that any industry should have the right to conduct its business without the oversight of the judicial system. What the lawyer-bashers don't want you to know is that frivolous lawsuits, by definition, get thrown out of court. In other words, the much-feared million-dollar settlement for someone who eats 12 Big Macs a day is not going to happen. That's why there are only a few obesity cases in court right now and why the only reason we're considering this bill today is because the well-heeled McDonald's Corporation doesn't want to face a legitimate lawsuit for false advertising. Many of the pending cases are for false advertising, claiming food is low fat when it's really not, and this bill is so broadly worded that it would preclude such cases from going forward. The threat of legitimate lawsuits against fast-food corporations is as much a part of creating social change as is the threat of a Congressional investigation. I believe that both are equally legitimate and democratic. We wouldn't want judges to ban us from holding hearings and nor should we ban them from hearing cases Even more important than the issue of obesity or Congressional meddling in the judicial branch is the fundamental right of every American to have their day in court. Even if you eat 12 Big Macs a day, you have a right to plead your case before a judge. And the judge has the right to throw the case out, but Congress has no business preemptively closing the courthouse doors to a particular group of Americans.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague and neighbor Ms. Barbara Lee to pay tribute to the celebrations planned by the United Nations Association, East Bay Chapter to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations. Events have been planned in the city of Alameda, California and Jack London Square in Oakland, California. At Jack London Square, there will be a Parade of Nations, a 60th Anniversary Ceremony, International Food Festival, Multi-Cultural Musical and Dance Performance as well as children's and family activities. United Nations celebratory activities in Alameda will be held in Kofman Auditorium and will feature a participatory experience of song, dance and inspiration for Alameda's children, families and all who, as global citizens, dream of a better and united world. The event will be a springboard to think globally and act locally in the spirit of the United Nations. The United Nations Association-East Bay Chapter describes membership in their organization as a personal investment in the world's future. Their members stay involved in some of the most important issues facing our world today. We applaud these committed members as they plan and participate in the activities to celebrate the United Nations' 60th Anniversary in the East Bay. Their engagement and involvement to educate and involve the public in UN activities and their promotion of UN principles are exemplary.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893, the so-called Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005. This bill represents the worst of legislation written by and for corporations. In the name of helping the economy, it decimates environmental laws and eliminates the ability of state and local governments to decide what's best for them. It then reimburses oil companies for the inconvenience of having to act appropriately to protect our air and water. It is so far afield of economic reality that even the oil companies admit that refining capacity will increase without it. It is so environmentally reckless that one has to wonder if Republicans think that they, in addition to being exempt from our ethics rules, breathe different air than the rest of us. While the Majority says that environmental regulations are the reason for high gas prices, the facts just don't support their claim. The reason that the cost of refining has increased is because oil companies voluntarily closed 30 refineries in the late eighties and early nineties to increase their profit margins. The scheme worked: Refinery revenues increased by 255 percent last year alone. As one would expect, high profits are now encouraging companies to once again build and expand refineries. 1.4 million barrels per day of refining capacity were added between 1996 and 2003. Due to this expansion, even the American Petroleum Institute acknowledges that the Republican's bill is completely unnecessary. This bill is shamefully using hurricanes and high gas prices as an excuse to advance the extreme anti-environment agenda of the Republican Party's corporate bankrollers. It would: Allow the President to place new refineries in national forests, wildlife refuges, and closed military bases. The military base in my district would probably be an appealing target for this President:. It's the site of a planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many communities around the country, the City of Alameda has undergone an extensive planning process to convert the base to civilian use, but if the President said the word, all that could be undone without any local recourse. Give the Federal Government sole authority to place new refineries, even those not on federal land. Apparently the oil executives running the Bush Energy Department know better than your City Council where an oil refinery should be placed. Requires the Federal Government to reimburse refinery operators for the cost of lawsuits and any new environmental regulations. Citizens beware: If the Bush Administration wants to put a refinery next to your child's preschool, you can sue to block it, but you'll have to pay back the oil company every cent the lawsuit costs them. We could have raised fuel economy standards today--the one policy that would actually have a dramatic impact on gas prices--but the Majority blocked the House from even voting on the issue. Then again, it would hardly be germane to consider such an amendment on a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering gas prices. I vote no on this reckless bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rick Geha who is being honored by The Ohlone College Foundation in Fremont, California, as 2005 Citizen of the Year. Since 1987, the Ohlone College Foundation has awarded a Citizen of the Year Award at its Annual Benefit Luncheon to honor individuals or organizations that have made an exceptional contribution and commitment to the advancement of the community. Rick Geha is being honored for his ``Commitment to Excellence.'' As a businessman, he is a leader among Bay Area realtors and a mentor in the real estate business. As a community activist, he is a strong advocate for children and education. He has served on the Ohlone College Foundation Board since 1993 and has held the position of Board Chair for the past eight years. He has served two terms on the Kidango Board of Directors. Kidango, formerly Tri-cities Children's Center, provides a variety of child development programs in 46 locations in three Bay Area Counties. The Fremont Education Foundation honored Rich Geha as the Community Honoree for its 2005 Excellence in Education award. Rick Geha gives tirelessly to the community through his philanthropy, community service, business expertise, and dedication to making a positive difference. On October 21, family and friends as well as the grateful recipients of Rich Geha's kind service and financial support to non-profit organizations, will gather to acknowledge his years of community service. I join them in appreciation for his commitment to excellence.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. The Republican majority has already dismantled nearly every Government program for people, and now it appears they're moving on to other species. They constantly preach that God's creations are precious, yet once again they are showing their hypocrisy that they would be so careless with the lives of God's creatures. Perhaps if some of these endangered species were in a persistent vegetative state, Republicans would come rushing to their aid. Perhaps if scientists would concede these same plants and animals were fashioned during the week of God's creating the world, the right wing would be willing to help. The Republicans want us to believe that this bill represents a fair and balanced way to protect endangered species without infringing on property rights. Not true. This bill grants unprecedented and immeasurable subsidies to land owners rather than ensuring their fair costs are covered; so much so in fact, that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office cannot estimate the potential impact to the Federal budget. This bill is nothing more than an assault on our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me, and every environmental organization on God's green Earth, in opposing this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 388, Condemn Cuban Repression. It is ironic that Congress is busy condemning Cuban President Fidel Castro for violating human rights when President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other members of the administration have endorsed the perpetual detention and torture of over 500 detainees held by the United States military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Until the United States' foreign policy matches its rhetoric, no country should take these resolutions seriously. I also oppose this resolution because it singles out and criticizes the European Union for its policies towards Cuba. Again, the United States hypocrisy is on show for the world. As Congress complains about foreign governments having commercial relations with the communist Cuban government, this same Congress has the audacity to pass free trade agreements and expand commercial relations with the communist government of China. Recent history shows that the Chinese government has consistently repressed its citizens. However, I have not seen one recent resolution condemning the Chinese government for its human rights abuses. Further, the embargo of Cuba has been a failed policy that has only strengthened Fidel Castro's authority. For Congress to encourage other countries to implement a policy that has not worked for 40 years is as misguided as hiring a horse lawyer to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. If this Congress wants to be respected for its opposition against human rights abuses, then the government it should be condemning first for its practices is our own.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 245, which tells the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. I oppose this resolution on two grounds. First, Congress shouldn't be telling the Supreme Court how to do their job. Second, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit decision should stand. That being said, I shouldn't be surprised that those who claim to speak for God also think they have the right to tell our independent judiciary what to do. The Republican Majority has railed against activist judges legislating from the bench throughout the Supreme Court nomination hearings, but they apparently see nothing wrong with telling those judges how to rule from the legislature. If judges shouldn't legislate, Congress shouldn't adjudicate. Beyond the hypocrisy and improper meddling of this resolution, I oppose it because the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The Constitution bars Congress from passing any law that recognizes religion. The 1954 law, passed at the height of anti-Communism, that specifically added the phrase ``under God'' to the Pledge, could not be more clearly unconstitutional. The feeble argument of proponents of this resolution that ``under God'' is not overtly religious is only undermined by their holy crusade to make darn sure that the phrase stays in the Pledge. This will be the sixth time this House has voted on this issue--hardly a sign of the phrase's unimportance to religious conservatives. Mr. Speaker, I don't want my children or any child to have a compulsory, religious recitation in this supposedly free society, and seeing the vehemence of those who think otherwise only strengthens my opposition to the Pledge.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005. Disappointingly, I would have voted for this legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program if it were the same bill that the Education and Workforce Committee passed unanimously with bipartisan support. That bill's new teacher qualifications and increased accountability would have greatly improved the educational outcomes for children in the Head Start program. I would have preferred that bill provide more funding to ensure all eligible children can receive Head Start services, but on balance, the bipartisan bill was worth voting for. Instead, the Republican Majority has added an amendment which would, for the first time in Head Start's 30-year history, allow a faith-based sponsored Head Start Program to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against highly qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their religious views. Ironically, even the faith-based community Republicans spend so much time pandering to is opposed to this discriminatory amendment. Groups including the Baptist Joint Committee, American Jewish Congress and African American Ministers in Action oppose the notion that Head Start should allow religious discrimination. This Head Start bill, however, is only the latest example of such prejudice; President Bush and his Congressional Republican counterparts have steadily pushed an agenda latent with religious discrimination. Most recently, the Majority has sought to impart their religious views on historically secular programs such as the Workforce Investment Act and the Community Services Block Grant. Perhaps what is most abhorrent is that the Republican Party wants to institutionalize discrimination in a program that provides early childhood development and educational services that are intended to prepare low-income children to enter kindergarten and improve their success later in life. These are not the ``family values'' we should teach our children, whether it's paid for with tax-payer funds or not. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is time to show the American people that this Congress supports tolerance over discrimination. It is time we had a Head Start Reauthorization bill that focuses on improving the educational development of our children, and is not being used as a vehicle to teach our children one of the world's ugliest lessons: discrimination.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) to introduce the Medicare Informed Choice Act. This bill provides needed extra protections for beneficiaries during the first year of implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that participation rates by private drug plans and new Medicare Advantage plans in the new Part D drug program will be much higher than originally predicted. There will be an average of 40-50 plans per region in the country. Babette S. Edgar, finance and operations division director in CMS's Medicare Drug Benefit Group, was recently quoted saying, ``There's going to be a lot of choice out there . . . It's going to be very, very confusing for [beneficiaries].'' We agree with Ms. Edgar. That's why we're introducing the Medicare Informed Choice Act. It is a simple bill with three important protections: (1) Delays late enrollment penalties: Beneficiaries need adequate time to make an informed choice. The bill expands the existing six- month open enrollment period to the entire year of 2006. This will give people added time to do the research and make the best decisions for themselves. Six months is not adequate time to reach and counsel 42 million beneficiaries on this complex new program. (2) Protections against bad choices: This provision gives every Medicare beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. Marketing is sure to be very aggressive and people may make a bad choice. Given the importance of the decision they make, it is appropriate to give beneficiaries a one- time chance to correct an initial mistake made during the first year of implementation. (3) Protections for employer-provided retiree benefits: Some retirees might not understand that purchasing Part D coverage could cost them their retiree health benefits. This provision would protect retirees from being dropped by their former employer's plan during the first year of implementation, so that beneficiaries have time to correct enrollment mistakes. Medicare beneficiaries are going to soon begin getting bombarded by information on the new drug benefit. Some information will come directly from the government in the form of the 2006 Medicare & You Handbook, a government insert in an upcoming edition of Parade Magazine, government-prepared television advertisements, and mailings from Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration, communications from their Members of Congress and Senators, and more. On top of all of these messages, they'll be recipients of direct marketing from untold numbers of private plans urging them to join their drug plan. They'll also likely hear from advocacy organizations like the Medicare Rx Access Network, State Health Insurance Programs around the country, and senior organizations. If they currently have retiree health benefits, they'll hear from their former employers as well. Medicare beneficiaries are being told that there will be counselors available to assist them at 1-800-Medicare and at local State Health Insurance Programs around the country. We know from experience that these phone lines and support services will be overburdened. Beneficiaries should not pay the price for a support system that may not operate effectively. To avert that, we must inject some flexibility into the implementation period. The Administration's own actuaries are concerned that participation rates will be far lower than they'd initially anticipated--they've announced figures as low as 9 million out of Medicare's more than 40 million beneficiaries. Again, CMS is right to be concerned. We appreciate their recognition of the pending chaos for seniors and people with disabilities. By delaying late enrollment penalties, giving every beneficiary a chance to change plans during the first year, and protecting those with employer-provided retiree health benefits, we can make sure our constituents are not forced into making quick--and wrong--decisions during the first year of this new program. By providing this flexibility, it is our hope that people will feel more confident in their ability to make an informed choice. We are pleased that Representatives Dingell, Rangel, Miller, Waxman, Brown, and Pallone--Congressional leaders on health care policy--have all joined us in introducing this legislation today. The bill has also been endorsed by leading senior citizen advocacy groups including: the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, the Medicare Rights Center, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. We urge CMS Administrator McClellan, HHS Secretary Leavitt, President Bush and Republicans in Congress to join with us to help mitigate the weight of the difficult choices that beneficiaries will have to make by endorsing the Medicare Informed Choice Act and working for its swift passage. Let's work together to make sure that initial choices don't negatively impact Medicare beneficiaries who may have acted without all the information needed to make the best choice. Protecting Medicare beneficiaries should not be a partisan endeavor. We look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.