Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for the outstanding service that Mr. Richard Price of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has provided to the U.S. Congress. In June, Mr. Price is retiring from CRS after 32 years of service. In his position at CRS, Mr. Price has been an invaluable asset to Congress both through his own work analyzing major health care legislation, and in his tireless efforts to guide other analysts in Health and Medicine unit. Over three decades at CRS, Mr. Price has worked on or supervised work on most, if not all, of the major health care legislation that Congress has considered. Mr. Price is a recognized expert in Medicare and Medicaid, the major U.S. health care financing programs; his particular areas of expertise span most aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policy, public health service programs and long-term care issues, including Medicaid eligibility and nursing home reform. His contributions to the development of legislation in these areas have been substantial. Through thoughtful analyses, balanced presentations, and clear explanations, Mr. Price has also helped countless Congressional staff understand the effect of the legislative proposals being considered. The importance of his dedicated support to the Ways and Means Committee when major health legislation was pending cannot be understated. We have relied on the CRS staff through the years both for analytical and technical assistance during consideration of major legislation and for help in writing up reports to accompany bills that move through the Committee and the Congress. Mr. Price has played a key role in these processes. In addition to his own work on legislation, Mr. Price has been responsible for managing an array of CRS analysts who assist Congress across a broad spectrum of health care issues, including those related to Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. In his position as section head in the Domestic Social Policy Division at CRS, Mr. Price was instrumental in building the health care staff of CRS into a large team of experienced senior analysts. His service to Congress in the analysis and development of policy alternatives affecting the range of private and public health care programs, his ability to conceptualize complex public policy issues, as well as his leadership of staff who work on many varied and complex health care issues, set the highest standards for assistance provided by CRS in service to the Congress. I am grateful for his assistance through the years, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judy Goff who served, from 1999 to 2005, as Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council, based in Oakland, California. She was the first woman elected to lead a major labor council in California and was also the first woman elected statewide President of SEIU Local 535. Judy Goff's leadership in the labor movement is exemplary. She has consistently supported labor solidarity by speaking at numerous rallies, walking countless picket lines, and being arrested for the cause of worker's rights. She is a founding member of the Labor Immigrant Organizing Network, which initiated a successful resolution to change the National AFL-CIO policy on immigrant workers' rights. Ms. Goff has never hesitated to put herself and the labor movement squarely on the side of the downtrodden and oppressed. She is a staunch supporter of workers' civil rights. During her leadership, the Alameda Labor Council opposed police action against workers and protesters and was instrumental in changing police tactics and policy to insure safety and respect. Increased diversity in the leadership of the Alameda Labor Council is another example of Judy Goff's consistent voice and steady leadership to represent the interest of all workers, locally, nationally, and internationally. She has devoted her efforts to improving labor education at all levels, including service on the California State Assembly Speaker's Commission on Labor Education. In keeping with her ongoing interest of economic parity for workers, she spearheaded the successful passage of a Living Wage Ordinance in the cities of Berkeley, Hayward, and Oakland as well as the Port of Oakland. On June 10, 2005, the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL- CIO will bestow its Lifetime Achievement Award on Judy Goff as Unionist of the Year. I join the Council and Ms. Goff's friends, family and admirers in appreciation for her many years of dedicated service and congratulate her on a distinguished career in the labor movement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005. Sen. Mikulski is introducing the companion bill in the Senate. This simple, bipartisan bill would greatly improve access to mental health services for Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) by allowing clinical social workers to direct bill for their services. This legislation seeks to correct a flaw in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with respect to Medicare coverage of clinical social work services to nursing home residents. The law omits Certified Social Workers (CSWs) from a list of clinical professionals allowed to directly bill Medicare Part B for mental health services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs. As a result of this omission, Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes often go without necessary mental health services. Numerous reports suggest that mental illness is highly prevalent in nursing homes, with mental health problems affecting more than 80 percent of the residents. These mental disorders--including major depression, anxiety, and severe cognitive impairment of Alzheimer's disease--interfere with a person's ability to carry out activities of daily living. Furthermore, older people have the highest rate of suicide of any age group, accounting for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. Thus, access to mental health services for seniors in nursing homes is critically important. Clinical social workers are highly trained mental health professionals and have been approved providers in the Medicare program since 1987. They provide 61 percent of mental health treatment in our country, and constitute the single largest group of mental health providers in the United States. Clinical social workers are also cost effective because they are paid less than Medicare's other mental health providers. They are reimbursed at 75 percent of the rate paid to psychologists. Sadly, in many cases vulnerable nursing home residents have no access to mental health services when highly skilled CSWs are unable to bill Medicare Part B for services in SNFs. Rural and other medically underserved areas are particularly disadvantaged because psychiatrists and psychologists are often unavailable. Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers were able to bill Medicare directly for providing mental health services to SNF residents, just like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Their current exclusion from this provider list is indefensible. The ultimate victims of the current regulations are the vulnerable seniors who need mental health care. Mental health treatment works. Alzheimer's patients and their families can benefit enormously from psycho-education and counseling around how to cope and manage behavior problems. Research trials have repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapy, either alone, or in combination with medication, can be effective in treating depression and debilitating anxiety. The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005 again makes it possible for CSWs to provide mental health services in skilled nursing facilities. This legislation helps to ensure access to needed mental health services for the many Medicare beneficiaries who reside in skilled nursing facilities. This bill is a small technical change to existing law, but would have the enormous effect of improving the lives of Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes who are suffering from mental illness. We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this important legislation this year.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill. Once again, the Republican majority has pushed forward a defense budget that does nothing to make this country any safer. This bill continues Congress' long-held tradition of throwing away billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. It authorizes $7.9 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense, a $100 million increase over President Bush's request. Yet, this unproven Cold War concept does not address the very real security threat posed by weapons of significant magnitude that are readily delivered in a suitcase or cargo container. Developing new nuclear weapons, as this bill encourages, will not deter terrorists or rogue nations like North Korea. It encourages them to answer in kind, especially as the Bush Administration pursues its belligerent policy of preemption. Further, as long as the United States is in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency will continue to have a justification to carry out their savage attacks on the Iraqi people and security forces and American soldiers. It is unfortunate the Republican majority continues to believe that throwing more money at the problems in Iraq will somehow slow death rates. Over 1,500 young Americans and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed; the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary if the United States is serious about bringing peace and security to the Iraqi people. Whether or not those soldiers currently fighting overseas are active duty, National Guard or reserves, they all deserve the same access to health care. Unfortunately, this bill once again shortchanges our troops. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee unilaterally stripped out language in the bill that provided the same health care to our National Guard members and reservists as the rest of our soldiers. President Bush's war in Iraq has leaned heavily on National Guard members and reservists. It is only fair that we provide them--and their family members--the same health care as the rest of our soldiers; their sacrifice has been no less. The American people may be surprised to know that even a defense bill can be used to advance the agenda of the religious right. An amendment to allow servicewomen to use their own funds to obtain an abortion at an overseas U.S. military medical facility was beaten back by conservatives who continue to prove they vote first, and think second. How can we ask our women in uniform to fight abroad for the rights of others, when we prevent them from exercising their own constitutional right to choose? I urge my colleagues to vote down this wasteful and irresponsible bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, accounts for what is truly required in Iraq, and provides the best possible support for all our troops. Nor does it alleviate years of Defense Department policies that discriminate against sexual orientation and gender.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hoyer and I rise today to honor Helen Foote, a woman of faith, family, a selfless spirit and infectious laughter. Ms. Foote was born to the late Reverend Benjamin Collins and Henrietta Collins in South River, Maryland. One of eight children, Helen received her education in a one-room school and spent her free time like most children, fishing, hunting and picking apples from the trees in a nearby orchard. On Sundays, Helen and her cousins spent time learning the art of playing the piano. It was here, during those lessons, her already well-known laughter earned her the nickname ``KeeKee'' embodying the sound of her continuous and infectious laugh. As she grew up, Ms. Foote developed a reputation for spreading joy both through her laugh and through her altruistic nature. Whether helping wallpaper her parent's bedroom, caring for her ailing mother or donating her time to her church, Helen Foote was the very model of selfless dedication. In fact, her benevolence eventually led Hope Memorial St. Mark United Methodist Church to name her Mother of the Year in 2004. And as a mother of five daughters, one stepdaughter, 10 grandchildren, 5 step-grandchildren, 9 great-grandchildren, 6 step- great-grandchildren and 1 great-great-grandchild, that award was well- earned. The daughter of a Reverend, religion always remained a pivotal aspect of Ms. Foote's family life. At a young age she attended Chews United Methodist Church in Owensville, Maryland. In her later years she became a member of Hope Chapel now referred to as Hope Memorial St. Mark United Methodist Church. It was here Ms. Foote served as a Communion Steward, an Usher and a member of the United Methodist Women. Today you can still find Ms. Foote doing the things she loves best: working in her yard, cooking meals for her family, rooting for her beloved Baltimore Orioles, and, occasionally, wallpapering a bedroom. Helen Foote is truly a blessing to all she encounters. She is an inspiration, a foundation for the young and dedicated, and a distinguished and divine family woman. Helen Foote is truly a woman of strength and I am honored to rise today and honor her in this Congress.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Our research policies should be decided by scientists and doctors at the National Institutes of Health and not by Karl Rove and self-appointed religious gurus. If you believe it is morally superior to discard a single cell in a freezer rather than to use it to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, and you are asked to donate an embryo, then by all means refuse to do so. But do not tell my constituents that we cannot alleviate their suffering because it might offend modern-day Pharisees. Do not tell my constituent Don Reed and his son Roman, who is paralyzed from a high school football accident, that scientists working on stem cell research in California will not be able to collaborate with the NIH. Many in government already think they have the right to tell you whom you can marry, what kind of birth control you can use and how you die. Now they think their moral superiority extends to the single cell level. Beyond my outrage at this arrogance, I am saddened by this country's precipitous decline in the estimation of the rest of the world. If this bill does not pass and scientists of the world meet to discuss this rapidly advancing field, many of our key researchers will be stuck here working with the few stem cell lines that are considered inoffensive. The Flat Earth Society will tell you that the U.S. has to show moral leadership, and just because the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community supports research, it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership. I do not look to those that will not acknowledge the existence of global warming for scientific and ethical leadership. I do not think the politicians who so eagerly decided they knew what was best for Terry Schiavo know much about life, dignity, or suffering. I stand proudly with millions of Americans on behalf of this country's tradition of scientific leadership, and I urge a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 810.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2361. This legislation is irresponsible. It under-funds programs to preserve open space. It endangers public health. And, it abdicates our responsibility to protect the environment for future generations. In this time of increased growth and urban sprawl, our green spaces are more precious then ever. Instead, this bill eliminates funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, designed to help local communities preserve open space, protect wildlife and make recreation opportunities available in urban areas. In addition, this bill cuts funding for the environmental enforcement activities of the EPA by $12 million. Republicans have consistently sought to weaken environmental standards and this maneuver is the latest in a series of attempts to undermine what have been successful environmental protections and the behest of big business. Big business should never be allowed a free pass to destroy the environment while endangering the health of millions of Americans who will be exposed to dirtier air and water. I won't vote for this indefensible legislation that only serves to harm the environment and put Americans' health at risk. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and our environment and this legislation blatantly takes us in the opposite direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the pot is calling the kettle black. The Administration is chastising Newsweek magazine for a story containing a fact that turned out to be false. This is the same Administration that lied to the Congress, the United Nations and the American people by fabricating reasons to send us to war. The same Administration responsible for the death of over 1,500 American servicemen and women and countless Iraqi civilians; the same Administration which shields its highest officials from responsibility for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Under those circumstances, how can the Bush Administration, with a straight face, denounce a journalist for not checking all the facts before going public with a story? Of course, Newsweek should have checked the facts more diligently before publishing their article. They made a big mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, we must keep this incident in perspective. Newsweek did make a mistake, but they had the dignity and honor to own up to it. Unfortunately, I doubt the Bush Administration is capable of displaying such honesty. Instead, the Bush Administration focuses on public relations tactics to divert attention from their own incompetence and fabrications rather than focusing their energies on creating a plan to get our troops out of Iraq. The hypocrisy of this Administration is astonishing and this most recent episode is, unfortunately, merely one example of many. Just yesterday Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in reference to the Newsweek article, ``People lost their lives. People are dead. People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be very careful about what they do. ``I couldn't agree more. People should be very careful about what they say and do; President Bush and his Cabinet, most of all. Mr. Speaker, accountability and power cannot be separated. If the President accepts the duties and responsibilities of his office he must do exactly what he is asking Newsweek to do: he needs to tell Americans the truth about his own indiscretions in this tragic war.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. At $82 billion, this is the second largest supplemental appropriations request passed by Congress. This is on top of an already bloated $400 billion defense budget. Instead of borrowing more from our children, Congress ought to instead stop wasteful spending on ineffective, redundant and unnecessary weapons programs. A supplemental of this size wouldn't even be necessary if Congress dumped pie-in-the-sky missile defense programs, put a stop to the delayed and over budget F-22 and F-35, and ended the boondoggle Osprey that's unsafe for our troops. There is, however, a larger, more fundamental issue here. The Bush Administration refuses to live up to the human costs of this ongoing war. Over 1,500 young Americans dead, over 12,000 young Americans maimed and wounded and countless Iraqi civilians killed in the continuing bloodshed. The message of my vote against this bill today is clear. The immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary if the United States is serious about bringing peace and security to the Iraqi people. The continued presence of an American occupying force only intensifies the resentment, anger and distrust that fuels the ongoing violence against our troops. It's time to bring our troops home. This message is lost on the Bush Administration. They've sought to establish American dominance in the region and to pursue regime change at any cost. They'll stay the course whatever the tragic consequences for the wives, husbands and families of our soldiers. These brave young Americans face down deadly conflict in the streets each and every day. We honor their courage and service. But, for their sake, everyone of us in this House must consider the burden they bear. Is it worth it for them and for all of us? America is not safer today two years after the capricious preemptive invasion of Iraq. Terror networks continue to grow and recruit in response to the US' arrogant preeminence in the Middle East. Terrorism has been brought to the front door of America: waged mercilessly against our troops in places like Baghdad and Tikrit. That terror won't stop until we get serious about involving the world in solving this conflict. We must actively involve Arab states, the United Nations and our major world partners in taking a stand against these insurgents--and in taking our place. A large, multinational peacekeeping force is the soundest way forward to end the war and win the peace. The Bush Administration can continue to throw billions at Halliburton without real accountability. They can continue to look the other way as profiteering trumps genuine reconstruction in Iraq. They can laud its new democracy as one of the key foundations necessary to sustain it-- Iraq's economy--continues to flounder. The Bush Administration can do all these things, but the end of this war will not come any day sooner. What America needs most is honest leadership and a clear strategy for Iraq. That's not reflected in this bill. Its just more money thrown at a crisis we cannot solve through force of will alone. That is our problem here today. Congress won't force our President and his advisors to live up to their failure. We'll vote to give them another blank check without addressing the fundamental illusion of our Iraq policy: we can win the peace alone. That's a costly falsehood. I urge my colleagues to take responsibility for the lives of our soldiers, Iraq's future, and the future security of the United States and the world. Vote down this bill. It is time to bring our troops home.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, during Cover the Uninsured Week, I am pleased to introduce a bill to help nearly four million people age 55- 65 obtain access to affordable health insurance. I am joined by my colleague Rep. Sherrod Brown and more than 90 additional Democratic cosponsors in introducing the ``Medicare Early Access Act,'' one of three signature bills that offer attainable, common sense solutions for the uninsured. We have 45 million Americans without health insurance--8 million of whom are children. Millions more are underinsured with paltry policies that exclude necessary benefits or charge a king's ransom for co-pays and deductibles. Increasingly, access to coverage and quality care in this country is determined by an ability to pay rather than medical need. There are many approaches to addressing the needs of the growing population without health coverage in this country. As most of my colleagues know, I am an advocate of a universal health care system in which each and every American would have health coverage. That is the most fair, affordable, and sustainable solution to our national health care needs. However, that won't be accomplished overnight. In the meantime, there are steps that Congress can and should be taking to develop immediate, if smaller, steps to providing people affordable health insurance coverage options. That's why we've joined together to introduce three separate bills that each target a specific population that is seeing its uninsured rate climb. The Medicare Early Access Act targets early retirees; the Family Care Act, being introduced by Rep. Dingell, targets children and families; and the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act, being introduced by Rep. Barrow, targets small businesses and self-employed individuals. The Medicare Early Access act would provide people age 55 to 65 with the option of buying into Medicare--a program with a proven track record that works. Unfortunately, retiree health benefits have vanished or are quickly disappearing, leaving people with few or no affordable coverage options. Still, among the 55-65 population, it is more likely that someone who is retired will have health insurance than someone still in the workforce. Access to health insurance diminishes for individuals in low-wage jobs. Thirty-five percent of workers age 55-65 who earn less than 200 percent of poverty are uninsured compared with 17 percent uninsured nationwide. Age rating and other underwriting techniques resulting in excessive premiums make coverage unaffordable. Those who are offered coverage are often required to pay astronomical deductibles and co-pays, or are severely limited by pre-existing condition exclusions, leaving them grossly underinsured. In 1965, Medicare was specifically designed to provide coverage for those the market would not insure. Today we have the opportunity to expand on the original purpose of Medicare by providing access to people the market does not adequately cover. The Medicare Early Access Act would reduce the number of uninsured, provide better coverage for the underinsured, and improve the health status of this vulnerable population without harming Medicare or other insurance markets. That's why the Medicare Early Access Act makes so much sense. It would allow people in this cohort to buy-into Medicare and enjoy the exact same benefits available to all other Medicare beneficiaries. Premiums for these new participants would be based on actuarial calculations of the cost of providing services to the population. There would be no effect on the Medicare trust fund because premiums will cover the entire cost of services provided. To ensure premiums are affordable, the bill provides a 75 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit. Thus, participants would pay a monthly premium equal to 25 percent of the cost of the program--an amount similar to what employed individuals pay for their health benefits. I am pleased to report that advocacy organizations representing consumers and seniors agree with us. The Medicare Early Access Act has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, SEIU, and the UAW. This bill would provide affordable, comprehensive coverage to the most vulnerable uninsured who have few, if any, health insurance options in the current marketplace. The system necessary to implement this bill is already in place; all we have to do is agree the uninsured deserve viable coverage options. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact the Medicare Early Access Act this year. Following is a summary of the bill. The Medicare Early Access Act The Medicare Early Access Act gives early retirees and others between ages 55 and 65 the option of purchasing Medicare coverage. Millions of near elderly who are uninsured can benefit from a Medicare buy-in. This bill provides affordable health insurance to a vulnerable population, while protecting the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring your attention to the recent Human Rights Watch report, Getting Away with Torture?: Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees. This report reveals the unthinkable: The torture carried out against prisoners under U.S. authority may have been part of an official government policy. The report also points out that none of the government and military investigations carried out so far has independently examined the culpability of top civilian and military officials. Despite strong evidence showing that high-ranking U.S. officials may be responsible for carrying out immoral and illegal policies, ``independent'' investigations have focused on protecting high-ranking officials and punishing subordinates instead of bringing the guilty to justice. These actions run counter to the United States' long-standing commitment to the spirit of the Geneva Convention. The War Crimes Act of 1996 provides criminal punishment for Americans who commit a war crime inside or outside the United States, and defines a war crime as any ``grave breach'' of the Geneva Conventions. The Anti-Torture Act of 1996 crimina1izes acts of torture occurring outside the United States' territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim. It should not have to be stated, but the United Stated must operate under the laws it has passed. If crimes have been committed they must be investigated completely. This report raises important issues and calls for the United States Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to carry out an investigation and prosecute all government officials and private citizens that developed, approved and carried out these torture policies. I urge my colleagues to read the report, available online at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the George Mark Children's House in San Leandro, California, the first freestanding residential children's hospice and respite care facility in the United States. The House offers around the clock respite care; transitional care, end-of life and family care services to children with life- threatening or terminal illnesses. The George Mark Children's House's focus is on keeping the family intact while in the midst of profoundly challenging circumstances. The House features private family quarters that allow parents and siblings to stay together with a child during the final stage of his or her life, when care at home or the hospital is no longer practical and/or desirable. The House helps families make the most of the precious time they have remaining together. In this unhurried, nurturing and non- institutional setting, child focused end-of life care and bereavement support is available for the entire family. An interdisciplinary team of specialists staff the House; pediatric physicians, nurses, social workers, spiritual care counselors, therapists and intensively trained volunteers. Through the generosity and support of the community, the George Mark Children's House is accessible to medically eligible families, regardless of their ability to pay. It is anticipated the House will serve up to 150 families per year from the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. I am hopeful the George Mark Children's House will serve as a model to be replicated throughout the country for the establishment of other residential children's hospices for terminally ill children, and respite care for their families with a full spectrum of supportive services. I send best wishes to the George Mark Children's House as we welcome them to our community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arabella Martinez, a remarkable individual who is retiring after many years of exemplary service and dedicated community involvement in Oakland, California. On May 11, 2005, the community will celebrate Ms. Martinez ``The legacy of a Living Legend'' at a dinner in her honor. Arabella Martinez has extensive experience in a wide range of activities affecting the role of minorities and women in the economy and larger society. Her experience in social work, community action programs, and community development led to her conviction that economic development, evolving from strong, community-directed institutions, was the most effective path toward economic self-sufficiency and empowerment. President Jimmy Carter recognized Ms. Martinez's talent and experience and appointed her Secretary for Human Development Services in the Department of Health Education and Welfare. She became the first Hispanic woman to hold this position. Ms. Martinez was one of the founders and the first Executive Director of the Spanish Speaking Unity Council. After a fifteen-year absence, she returned to the Unity Council in December 1989, to rescue it from near bankruptcy. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council is now one of the largest and most successful community development corporations in the nation. Besides founding the Unity Council, Ms. Martinez helped build the Women's Initiative for Self Employment as a Board member and consultant. She raised over $800,000 for the Oakland YWCA's capital campaign to save its historically significant Julia Morgan building. Over the past ten years, Ms. Martinez has successfully worked to revitalize the Fruitvale district, an inner-city neighborhood in Oakland, California. The revitalization includes major real estate development projects, community building activities, and a range of community and family asset development programs. Ms. Martinez's major responsibility has been the successful development of a $100 million mixed use, transit-oriented development around the Fruitvale BART station. The Transit Village includes 245,000 square feet of community facilities, child development and senior centers, a community clinic, a library, technology center, retail space housing and podium parking in two multi-level complexes, bisected by a pedestrian plaza. The Fruitvale Transit Village has transformed the community and its residents. It provides social services as well as community empowerment for individuals and businesses to thrive. Arabella Martinez is truly a living legend who continues to work tirelessly for the benefit of others. I join the community in expressing heartfelt appreciation for her noteworthy contributions. She leaves a legacy of talent and commitment that is hard to match.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. Medicare's mental health coverage is woefully inadequate. Instead of the standard 20 percent coinsurance payment required of beneficiaries, mental health services require a 50 percent copayment. Further, only limited community-based treatments are covered and, unlike treatment for physical illness, there is a 190-day lifetime cap on mental health hospitalization days. The bill we are introducing today eliminates this blatant mental health discrimination under Medicare and modernizes the Medicare mental health benefit to meet today's standards of care. One in five members of our senior population displays mental difficulties that are not part of the normal aging process. In primary care settings, over a third of senior citizens demonstrate symptoms of depression and impaired social functioning. Yet only one out of every three mentally ill seniors receives the mental health services he/she needs. Older adults also have the highest rate of suicide of any segment of our population. In addition, mental illness is the single largest diagnostic category for Medicare beneficiaries on disability. There is a critical need for effective and accessible mental health care for the Medicare population. Recent research has found a direct relationship between treating depression in older adults and improved physical functioning associated with independent living. Unfortunately, the current structure of Medicare mental health benefits is inadequate and presents multiple barriers to access of essential treatment. This bill addresses these problems. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005 is a straightforward bill that improves Medicare's mental health benefits as follows: It reduces the discriminatory co-payment for outpatient mental health services from 50 percent to the 20 percent level charged for most other Part B medical services. It eliminates the arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals. It improves beneficiary access to mental health services by including within Medicare a number of community-based residential and intensive outpatient mental health services that characterize today's state-of- the-art clinical practices. It further improves access to needed mental health services by addressing the shortage of qualified mental health professionals serving older and disabled Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas by allowing state licensed marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors to provide Medicare-covered services. Similarly, it corrects a legislative oversight that will facilitate the provision of mental health services by clinical social workers within skilled nursing facilities. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study to examine whether the Medicare criteria to cover therapeutic services to beneficiaries with Alzheimer's and related cognitive disorders discriminates by being too restrictive. The push for mental health parity is ongoing. We've made important strides forward for the under-65 population. Twenty-three states have already enacted full mental health parity and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan was improved in 2001 to assure that all federal employees and members of Congress are provided mental health parity. In April 2002, President Bush called for Congress to enact legislation to provide equivalence for private sector health insurance coverage of mental and physical conditions (though he has yet to endorse any legislation to achieve that goal). What has been too-often missing from this overall mental health parity debate is the fact that the Medicare program continues to fail to meet the mental health needs of America's seniors and those with disabilities. That's why we've introduced the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act. That's also why this bill has received support from numerous mental health advocacy and provider organizations including: the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, and the Clinical Social Work Federation. It is past time for us to take action with regard to Medicare's inadequate mental health benefits. Over the years, Congress has updated Medicare's benefits for treatment of physical illnesses as the practice of medicine has changed. The mental health field has undergone many advances over the past several decades. Effective, research-validated interventions have been developed for many mental conditions that affect stricken beneficiaries. Most mental conditions no longer require long-term hospitalizations, and can be effectively treated in less restrictive community settings. This bill recognizes these advances in clinical treatment practices and adjusts Medicare's mental health coverage to account for them. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005 removes discriminatory features from the Medicare mental health benefits and helps facilitate access to up-to-date and affordable mental health services for our elderly and disabled. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage into law.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005. This bill would not only jail grandparents, older siblings, and others who attempt to help minors who can't turn to their parents, but it would criminalize doctors, regardless of the laws of the State in which they practice. Today I stand here principally as a Californian. Republicans and Democrats in California have stood up for a woman's right to choose. They have defended the privacy and health of women. We do not have a parental consent law in California because we don't dare suggest that the decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly or done in isolation unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't pretend that forcing girls who have been raped by their fathers to get their permission to terminate the pregnancy is somehow standing up for ``family values.'' The people of my home State have resisted the grotesque politics of the so-called ``culture of life.'' The politics of people who vote to cut $xx billion in health care for the poorest Americans and simultaneously intervene in private, end-of-life decisions and hide behind their hypocritical mandate of ``looking out for the most vulnerable.'' Even though the people of California and their bipartisan elected leaders have judiciously worked to protect the privacy and health of women, some in Washington, DC, think they know better. This legislation would jail California doctors with out-of-state patients unless they inform the parents in person 24 hours in advance of the procedure. If the parents are unreachable, doctors would have to give notice ``by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery to the last known address of the person being notified, with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours following noon on the next day subsequent to mailing on which regular mail delivery takes place.'' This ludicrous meddling in medical decisionmaking would be a joke if it weren't so tragic. If enacted, the consequence for offending the religious right now carries with it up to a year in prison. God help the doctor who is as confused by that sentence as I am. Mr. Chairman, those of us who still believe in science know that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to have comprehensive sex education and provide full funding for family planning so that unintended pregnancies don't happen in the first place. It's no coincidence that the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year low when President Clinton left office, has risen throughout President Bush's first term. The ``culture of life'' philosophy of hypocrisy, fear, and shame works better on the campaign stump then it does in practice. If this is what the culture of life is really all about, then I want no part of it. I vote no on this shameful, unconstitutional bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I guess I would be willing to suggest that the Medicaid programs are perfect, but for one major problem, and that would be the Republican Party in the Congress of the United States. What changes would I make? I would enforce the ethics rules to keep their hands out of the pockets of the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry who fly them about in jets and give them hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, which keeps them from allowing reimportation of drugs which would save many of the Governors a good bit of money on their Medicaid programs. Changing the ethics rules that let people who might make unethical moves would be another great move, so it would prevent the managed care industry from getting extra money in the Medicare bill which would prevent the Republicans having the money to help Medicaid. The Medicaid growth is due largely to the lousy job the President has done in job growth, the worst job since Herbert Hoover and the last Republican who had low job growth which increases the demand on Medicaid and the number of poor children and low-income workers who are forced to get their medical care through Medicaid because they are out of work through no fault of their own. So if we would have decent ethics rules, if we would allow reimportation of drugs, if we would stop allowing the lobbyists to buy votes, we would be able to get the kinds of reform that are needed. The money is currently available in the excesses we are paying to the pharmaceutical industry and the excesses we are paying to the managed care industry which the chair of the Committee on the Budget understands very well, and that is the reform that is needed. Change Congress. Make the Republicans behave in an ethical manner, and you will have the money for Medicaid. As Hubert Humphrey once said, ``The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' With all due respect for many of my colleagues, none of us could more eloquently make the case for Medicaid, which takes care of those in the dawn, twilight and shadows of life. Yet the budget we are going to consider this week fails the moral test of government by requiring savings that will result in deep cuts in Medicaid and other programs that serve low-income, vulnerable populations. A budget is a statement of priorities. Once again, we are faced with a Republican budget that put tax breaks for the rich and payola to corporate interests, ahead of basic government obligations. Just as when we debated the Medicare bill in 2003, it appears we will be asked to vote on entitlement policy without adequate information as to its effect. We do not know, for example, how the cuts will be distributed across states and populations. How many people will lose coverage? How many states will be forced to raise taxes--and by how much. To make up for the shortfall in funding and increased need? The saddest part of this debate is that Republicans don't need to target Medicaid. We can raise more than the amount Republicans expect to extract from Medicaid and income security programs simply by eliminating the overpayments currently paid to Medicare HMOs. We pay these plans more than we would for care provided through traditional Medicare. That's wrong! In fact, MedPAC--the non-partisan Congressional advisory commission-- has recommended that Congress enact changes that would result in ``payment neutrality.'' Doing so would result in savings of more than $21 billion over 5 years--more than enough to offset this budget's proposed Medicaid cuts. Sadly, I doubt Republicans will go after this low-hanging fruit. It would evoke howls of protest from their contributors. Consider this budget a word of warning to individuals in the dawn, twilight and shadows of life. Those who run on a moral values platform should consider that when they cast their votes on the budget this week. Vote for the Spratt Motion to Instruct, and against the Resolution itself later this week.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. First of all, it is improperly titled. It is not an energy policy act at all; it is the delay bill. Now, why is it the delay bill? Well, it is a bill that delays energy self-sufficiency by enacting tax breaks and policies that benefit the oil and gas industry and ignores renewable alternatives. It delays protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It delays holding the makers of MTBE accountable for destroying drinking water. It delays the end of $8 billion in special interest tax breaks. It delays fishery restoration by giving dam owners free rein. It delays protecting our children who suffer more and more from asthma as this bill delays enactment of stricter smog regulations. It delays protecting our shorelines from oil and gas development. It delays cleaner air and lower gas prices by mandating an agricultural welfare program called ethanol. It delays the end of corporate welfare for the likes of Enron and Home Depot. It delays the ability of States to enact tougher energy efficiency laws. I could keep going, Madam Chairman, but I do not want to delay the proceedings any further. The bill was written by and for the oil and gas industry with the involvement of a small band of powerful Members of Congress. Its very existence raises questions of ethical behavior. But as we know, our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unable to meet to consider such transgressions because of delay by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle which delay Committee on Standards of Official Conduct action against one of their own. The purpose is not to enact a sane energy policy for our country at all. In fact, as I have outlined above, it delays that very possibility. It is an antienvironment, anticonsumer, antienergy self- sufficiency and irresponsible corporate welfare bill. Rather than considering this legislation, we should be considering why ``delay'' continues to rule the House of Representatives. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) without further delay. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because the bill does not accommodate the 50 million uninsured Americans forced into bankruptcy by health care costs.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strenuous opposition to this unfair bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 256. This bankruptcy bill is touted as reform, but it is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable. Republicans are giving this gift to big credit card companies at a time when many Americans are faced with uncertain job stability, retirement security, and health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are filed due to the common financial emergency of a lost job or lack of medical coverage. This bill makes it harder for working families to seek shelter from these devastating and unavoidable expenses. The Wall Street Journal recently featured the case of a constituent in my district. Crystal Herndon, a single mom in Haywood, California, earns $15 an hour. Ms. Herndon got sick with pneumonia, causing her to miss six weeks of work and rack up over $5,000 in medical bills. These unforeseen expenses caused her to fall behind on other financial obligations, and before she knew it she was simply unable to make ends meet. Bankruptcy protection was the only way out for Ms. Herndon and her family. It's hard to see the abuse in real instances of need such as these, especially when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Sadly Crystal Herndon is not the only worker to be forced into bankruptcy due to unavoidable medical expenses. According to a recent Harvard University research study 2 million Americans, including filers and their dependents, face the double jeopardy of illness and bankruptcy each year. Most of these medically bankrupt are middle-class homeowners with responsible jobs and health insurance coverage. Once illness strikes, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage, and other loopholes quickly overwhelm these families' budgets. Loss of income and health insurance often deepen this financial crisis when a breadwinner becomes too sick to work. To add insult to injury, consumers like Crystal Herndon will potentially face an avalanche of litigation that they can't afford as a result of this bill. The bill requires the debtor in some cases to have to challenge big corporate lenders in court to prove they are eligible to seek relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. In addition, this bill also allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly ligitation that will force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights. In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so- called reform so that a parent seeking child support from a bankrupt spouse will have to fight it out with creditors in order to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be evicted by the landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same protection under the law. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families. Finally, Mr. Speaker, with all of the perks they've awarded to the big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that they are held accountable for their role in this consumer crisis. There is nothing is this bill that stops the abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy in the first place. Bankruptcy has always been about giving a fresh start to those who have fallen on hard times. The link between illness, job loss, and health insurance is a harsh reality in our country today. It is morally reprehensible to suggest that we exploit medical tragedies befalling honest, hardworking Americans in order to grant the wishes of the credit card companies. I urge my colleagues to vote down this merciless legislation. Now is not the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on S. 256.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself enough time to remind the historians here that it was the Republicans in the 1800s who established the original inheritance tax to prevent a nobility class from forming, an idle nobility class, in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)