Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for whom the complexities of a tax credit for the military would not exceed his intellect, as it obviously does the leader at the White House and the leader of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to speak on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Rangel). I think somebody on the majority side misinterpreted the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) position. I am aware that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) intends to vote for this bill. He is unhappy with the fact that it is not paid for and that it mistreats our military and our very lowest income people, but he does intend to vote for it. I think to suggest that he is opposing the bill is a misstatement of his position, and he has asked me to set the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I will not be sarcastic. I might be somewhat morally indignant. And I really think it is up to individual Members how they choose to vote on this bill. But I do think the bill clearly defines the Republican Party and it clearly defines the difference, and it defines compassion and conservatism as the Republicans understand it. One might say there is some fascism in the bill and there is some socialism. That is okay too. But let us look at what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) talked about earlier. 4.3 million families in this bill, because of the Republican refusal to freeze the $10,000 cap on income, 4.3 million families below $10,750 a year will have a tax increase. That means 9.2 million children living in those families will have less money while their parents' income has stayed the same or gone up slightly. To fix that would cost $4.3 billion. There is not enough compassion on the Republican side of the aisle to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to help those 9 million of the poorest children in this country. That is your Republican compassion. That is indecent, it is un- Christian and it is immoral. Now, this same Republican Party has countenanced a Tax Code on the other side. Eighty-two of the Fortune 500 companies, the most profitable companies in the country, paid no taxes over 3 years, and those 82 companies received $12.6 billion in refunds. So the Republicans are willing to give 82 rich, biggest corporations $12.6 billion. That is conservatism. But they do not have the compassion to let $4.3 billion be spent on the 9 million poorest children. There you have it. The Republicans will help 82 of the richest corporations with three times as much money as it would take to have helped the 9 million poorest children in this country. So whatever you vote on this bill, it does not make any difference, but know the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess that there are people in the hall who are hearing things. Maybe they have receptors in their teeth. I heard no chuckles, but there are people who do get messages that are from strange sources; and they are certainly not in this hall. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to note, I have had this lesson in civics, and the gentleman is correct, the Congress does dispose. And in the tenure of the current chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, he has disposed of a $5.6 trillion surplus, and he now has us a $3 trillion deficit. He is throwing away $8 trillion, in his Republican leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that is not so bad. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who has seen the inside of a military uniform. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2028, the So- Called ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This potentially unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the uncontrollable extremism of the Republican Party and its desperation to look ``conservative'' in the face of $400 billion deficits and nation-building in Iraq. The fact that the Supreme Court already threw out the decision striking ``Under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance makes this bill irrelevant with regard to the Pledge, and all the more frightening with regard to the true intentions of the Republicans. In the interest of politics, they would unravel our system of checks and balances and close the courthouse doors to religious minorities. They would set a new, disastrous precedent of letting 50 different state courts be the final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that state judges, rather than federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law. If the right wing had been in control of the Republican Party in the 1960s, we wouldn't have desegregation or Miranda warnings, as there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too. Mr. Speaker, everyone here realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our Constitution and Separation of Powers would be rendered meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: rallying the base and attacking defenseless Americans. Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means anything to you, you will vote ``no'' on this election-year ploy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Diane Rehm, who today enters her 25th year of hosting her WAMU radio show, The Diane Rehm Show. Her show is a true public service and she deserves our thanks and recognition for her efforts. In this era of 30-second soundbites, style over substance, and reporters interviewing other reporters, The Diane Rehm Show offers two hours per day of thoughtful, balanced examination of the issues. In fact, 1.4 million listeners on NPR and Sirius satellite radio enjoy Ms. Rehm's refuge from the typical talking head radio hosts who don't listen. While she has hosted the biggest names in public life, some of Ms. Rehm's most fascinating conversations are with callers or guests who are being interviewed for the first time. As she says, ``It's crucial we hear not only the voices of policymakers and experts, but that everyone has a chance to offer their opinions and ask questions.'' Topics on the show range from the war in Iraq to the art of landscape design. Ms. Rehm is also part of a tradition of public figures who turn adversity into a public service. In 1998, her career nearly came to a halt because of a mysterious speech problem. She took a leave of absence from the show until she was diagnosed and treated for spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological disorder. Not one to be defeated, she returned to the show and made a point of bringing attention to the condition by writing a book and speaking out about her disease. Shortly after her return to radio in 2000, she interviewed President Clinton and became the first radio talk show host to interview a sitting President in the Oval Office. I'm sure I join many of my colleagues and the American public in thanking Ms. Rehm for 25 thought-provoking years. Again, we congratulate her and we look forward to many more years of The Diane Rehm Show to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act, and Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. The Republicans are now so desperate to run against trial lawyers in this election that they have turned against our judicial system, student athletes, and countless other Americans. Almost all volunteers, including coaches, are already protected from frivolous lawsuits by the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, but the Republicans want to go beyond the better judgment and bipartisan consensus of 1997 in order to create an election-year issue. Under the athletic organization act, an organization like the NCAA could violate title IX by failing to provide equal opportunities for female athletes, or court violate civil rights, anti-trust, or labor laws, and not be held accountable in court. The 1997 Volunteer Protection Act rightly excluded volunteers who operate ``a motor vehicle, vessel [or] aircraft'' from legal immunity for negligence because volunteerism has to be encouraged without sacrificing the rights of injured parties. The pilot organization protection act destroys this balance by holding most pilots to one standard but allowing volunteer pilots to escape liability for negligence. The Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act hurts 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. This is one of many reasons why the U.S. Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opposes this bill. H.R. 4571 is also unconstitutional, because it forces every state court to implement new court rules and procedures, even though Congress has no jurisdiction over state courts. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand up for our Constitution, judicial system, athletes, and all Americans by voting ``no'' on these three bills. If that makes me a friend of the trial lawyers, then I proudly stand with Thurgood Marshall, William Jennings Bryan, and Abraham Lincoln over Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jerry Raber, a resident of Newark, California. The city of Newark will pay tribute to Jerry on September 16, 2004 at the dedication of Jerry Raber Ash Street Park. All who know her describe Jerry as a truly special woman. For over thirty years, Jerry has been a tireless advocate fighting to meet the needs of children in her community. When a fire devastated the original Ash Street Youth Center in March 1969, Jerry pushed and pursued the city to replace the building. Through her leadership and perseverance, she garnered support from volunteers and local contractors to help rebuild the center. Service clubs, such as Kiwanis and Rotary donated funds for play equipment while local contractors contributed roofing, concrete and other building materials. Area businesses and restaurants joined forces and placed donation jars in their establishments to collect funds that helped to complete the softball field. Along with city funding, federal grants, generous grassroots donations and hard work, the Ash Street Youth Center was rebuilt. The Center was ready to serve the community with programs such as ballet, cake decorating, adult education, secretarial courses, storybook hours, book exchanges, arts and crafts, a game lending library and a horse clinic. In June 1971, Ash Street Park joined the Ash Street Youth Center and services to the community were expanded. A wide variety of recreational activities included picnicking, softball, flag football, Easter egg hunts, supervised overnight camping and even a pet parade. Jerry Raber continued to push for further services for the community and assisted in the expansion of Ash Street Park. In 1992, Jerry, along with area residents, school officials and PTA members, formed a non- profit organization, Friends for Ash Street Community Enrichment, better known as FACE. FACE, with the city of Newark, started a new balanced lunch and recreation program. Children enrolled in the program received free hot lunches and the opportunity to participate in arts and crafts, sports games, lessons on public safety awareness and teambuilding. Jerry Raber's drive and persistence to make Newark a better place for children has been recognized and appreciated through the years. She has many markers of success she can point to with pride. Her accomplishments have earned her the honorary title ``Mayor of Old Town''. I join in thanking Jerry for her tireless efforts and investment in the community to make a difference in the lives of others.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have one more speaker, but I did want to repeat that, as far as this gentleman is concerned, the issue here, I know the dollars are not significant, but I rather suspect that the laws that were violated were written by the Republican Party when it was in the minority, and I do not think it is an issue that is partisan. I really believe this is an issue that does not deal with anything other than the very most basic facts which we need to carry out our duties here. And, yes, the $84,500 is symbolic, but it is the only recourse that we have under the law. The law was clearly broken. It seems to me that we should demand that it be taken and leave it to the Secretary to collect the $84,500 in any manner that he sees fit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would, as a matter of prerogative of the House, encourage us all to support this modest amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the lowest-priced amendment to be offered to this bill, but what it does basically is takes away $84,500 from the Secretary of HHS's management budget. The purpose of the amendment is to establish firmly the rights of Congress in regard to getting information from the administration. Very quickly, during the course of drafting and debating the Medicare bill that dealt with prescription drugs, the head of CMS Mr. Scully threatened improperly the actuary for CMS and caused this actuary to withhold information from the House of Representatives which would have indicated that the drug bill would not cost $400 billion, but more like $530 or $540 billion. That is a $140 billion difference. It may very well have affected the way many of us might have voted on that bill. It was substantial information. This information was not classified, and it comes under a bill that started back in 1912 when then Senator LaFollette indicated that we should have this information in the normal course of our proceedings available to us. According to GAO, who has recently suggested that the point of this legislation be enacted, never in the history of that legislation since 1912 has anybody violated this law until now. And it was GAO who said that the recourse for violating the law, for preventing a member of the administration from giving us information relative to our business, should be that the salary of the Administrator of CMS was improperly paid during the time from the point he gagged his subordinate until the end of his term when he resigned in December. So quite simply said once again, it is uncontrovertable that the law was broken by Mr. Scully, that the remedy is that he should not have the salary that he was paid during the period in which the information was withheld from us, and it indeed runs to the prerogative of this House to receive the information that is necessary for us to do our business in the normal course of legislating. And the Secretary can get the $84,500 back if he wants to go after Mr. Scully for it, and it is highly symbolic, but I think it is imperative that we establish our rights to receive information, either side of the aisle, or from any administration in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of the victims of September 11th and their families. We remember these Americans today and commend the bravery and courage of all those who came to their aid that day--many of whom selflessly gave their lives. We will never forget their sacrifice and heroism. As a Nation, we are unified in our commitment to each other. We ought to stand together now just as we stood together on September 11, 2001, and the days after in solemn remembrance. That is why I am disappointed to see Republicans politicizing this horrific day with this partisan resolution, which I cannot in good conscience support. I fully support our troops. I am committed to defending our Nation against terrorism. I will not, however, endorse the Administration's foreign policy, which I strongly oppose. The effort to use the attacks of September 11th to legitimize the war against Iraq or the future, indiscriminate use of military force at any cost is wrong. We must see September 11th as a reminder of what our Nation stands for--as was eloquently demonstrated by so many Americans on that horrible day. We must rededicate our Nation to compassionately fulfilling our ideals while recognizing our responsibility to lead the world by example, rather than by force. It is from this dark day that America must resolve to pursue peace, cooperation and understanding throughout the world. We must be committed to upholding democracy and human rights while working to improve the material conditions of people around the globe. Working for a safer, more humane world is our best defense against terrorists and our best hope for a more secure America.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) headquartered in Hayward, California. CRIL has been providing exemplary services to individuals with disabilities for the past 25 years. This outstanding organization was inspired by a group of individuals' awareness of the diverse unmet need for services in their communities to assist the disabled. Through the work of such individuals as longtime Executive Director Johnnie Lacy, CRIL was able to establish itself by occupying and purchasing its own office building in Hayward, California in 1979. Since then, CRIL has expanded its presence by opening its Tri-Cities office In Fremont and its Tri-Valley office in Livermore. In the years since its founding, CRIL has helped to represent the disabled community by advocating tirelessly for both their rights and needs. As a result, they have helped to eliminate societal barriers to participation, empowerment, and independent living. CRIL has also taken a central role in co-sponsoring the creation of housing for people with disabilities. In particular, CRIL is responsible for the creation of the Olive Tree Plaza and EC Magnolia Court Apartments in Hayward and the Redwood Lodge in Fremont. For over two decades, CRIL has become a resource for thousands with disabilities. It is my honor to recognize their tireless commitment and hard work to the disabled community and I am confident CRIL will continue to make a positive difference in the lives of the disabled population for years to come. I join the community in expressing my good wishes to CRIL on its 25th anniversary and sending best wishes for continued success.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alameda High School Valedictorian, Ben Hoffman. Ben, a resident of Alameda, California, did not use notes or index cards when he spoke with rhyme and rhythm to his fellow classmates during the graduation ceremonies for the Alameda High School Class of 2004. His remarks were met with a standing ovation. Ben's Valedictory Address, entitled ``Responsibility'' is an outstanding commentary about the challenges and opportunities facing the youth of today. He shared with his graduating class, remembrances of the past four years, looked at the injustice and violence in today's world and urged his classmates to make the world a better place in the future. Responsibility (By Benjamin Hoffman) A lot of people look at graduation, and say that it will give us many new opportunities, I think its more than that, I think it gives us many new responsibilities We live in a world where people of different nations Face starvation, extermination Exploitation, or discrimination Based solely on race, religion or sexual orientation These are the problems that we are facing Perpetuated by a lack of education But here we are at our graduation. For the past four years in this community We've had a unique opportunity To get a chance to truly see The value of growing up in unity And it'll just take a sec If we take time to reflect Bout the great affect How we learned to connect Protect and respect everyone we met Without expecting to collect And all of this in an atmosphere That provided not a thing for us to fear And I'm being sincere when I say I hold dear The value and promise of these past four years And now we have a responsibility Because of our recent history To promote an end to slavery And poverty, and adversity Wherever it may be Until the world is free. Free from the confines that define The lives that so many people are resigned To be living, without giving Any hope that mankind is not blind But much of mankind is blind to the suffering that exists And our first obstacle is going to be to conquer ignorance. But we got to start at home Gotta conquer our own Before our true potential can finally be shown Its been so easy to get caught up in only thinking About doing drugs or drinking, Or tripping over how your grades are sinking, Or that one girl you thought you saw winking. But those days are in the past, And although they may have been a blast, This graduation that's come at last, will be marked by contrast. We are stepping out into a world that's real Where people feel that they have to steal Without another way to deal With the task of finding a meal No longer is hiding in ignorance acceptable, No longer can these lives be expendable Its time for us to put aside the bull And be commendable and be dependable. The problems are complex, and have potential to perplex So we must always continue learning, whatever happens next And after teaching ourselves, we got to teach one another We gotta treat the world as if it were our younger brother Never stop learning from the cradle to the grave To gain the strength to be brave And fight for the enslaved Cuz only through education can this world be saved If we're not unaware, there is a chance we just don't care And as we see others despair, we just say ``life's not fair'' But this I can't conceive, cuz I know we all believe That when we care for one another, there is nothing we can't achieve Today's event will serve as a testament To represent, the great extent of our discontent As we lament A grave injustice long ago Today several Japanese graduates are recognized For an opportunity that they were denied Replaced by internment, and tear-filled eyes And as we remember with regret, and stifled tears At the same time we are given hope, that these are better years Today, people from opposing sides Of violent historical divides With their hearts and minds open wide Can be seen walking hand in hand. This is what Alameda has been all about But as we all go off on our own different routes We'll encounter intolerant people day in and day out But its important to recall That these people weren't born with such gall Its just how they were taught since before they could crawl And that leaves us with hope, that there's a way off that slippery slope And all these people need is for us to toss them a rope To help them replace their ambivalence with tolerance And begin to appreciate our every difference As they find some sense, and stop acting so dense So we've recognized the problem and want to participate In ending hate, and yet the world awaits, with us trapped behind a gate A gate created by fear This Post-9/11, orange alert threat White powder in the mail making you sweat Insane with duct tape and cellophane In this arcane campaign to abstain from pain Every time we see the world getting scarier Our first response can't be to build another barrier We got to tear them down, and stop sounding the alarm And instead open our hearts and open our arms To embrace the world, and all those in need From those who bleed, to those who can't read In order for us to move ahead We gotta get out from hiding under our beds Instead of continuing to spread the fear that we've been fed And once we're not afraid, we will refuse to fade And answer those who've prayed For someone to come To their aide But what I fear most Is that with all the problems we host You'll think the world's toast And all that's left is a ghost, cold and morose From coast to coast And lose all hope, cuz we're not even close. And as we see the depression Caused by years of oppression And violent aggression We get the impression That all the people in possession Of such lost expressions Have become resigned to the repression As we ask ourselves the question I'm only one person, what can I do? Well to this, I remind you all, history is made by only a few. Never let your apathy, impede your sympathy To the point where you fail to see That it is WE that hold the key To unlock the chains and set the world free Never underestimate A small group willing to dedicate Their lives to something great With intellect, courage and humanitarian trait And in the four years that I've gotten to know this class, I believe THAT is our fate. Our lives will have meaning and we'll have stories to tell Fighting to the end as the world goes to Hell The journey won't be easy, and we may get beat But at least we'll be right there, and have a front row seat.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Michael Yoshii, a clergyman in the city of Alameda, California. Reverend Yoshii has quickly become an integral part of Alameda's Asian community as a champion in the struggle for both human and civil rights. Reverend Yoshii will be honored for his outstanding contributions at a reception in his honor on Saturday, October 16, 2004. A third-generation Japanese American, Reverend Yoshii has been a strong advocate and spokesperson for a number of important issues, such as housing for the poor, racial diversity, and civil liberties. Reverend Yoshii has also helped to initiate discussion forums among Alameda's citizens, in an effort to encourage those of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds to become better acquainted. Reverend Yoshii has also been responsible for the creation of several school and community programs. In particular, he was instrumental in the establishment of the Alameda Multicultural Community Center. This center offers services to the Alameda community ranging from yoga classes to children's art classes. Reverend Yoshii has also contributed to the creation of several youth projects, including the Asian Pacific Youth Institute and the Asian Pacific Peer Counseling Project. Several years ago, Reverend Yoshii worked alongside community members in lobbying the Alameda School District and the Alameda Board of Education to conduct a diversity audit. The diversity audit produced new hiring goals to increase diversity among the district's workforce. Reverend Yoshii has also helped reinvigorate programs like the Organization of Alameda Asians, which promotes voter registration for the Alameda community. He also was the convener for the Coalition of Alamedans for Racial Equality (CARE), a community response to racial controversy within the Alameda Police Department. Currently, CARE has evolved into a multicultural training program for students to address issues surrounding identity, culture, and racism. I join in congratulating Reverend Yoshii for his commitment in creating new multicultural relationships in Alameda. I am confident Reverend Yoshii will continue to be an invaluable resource to the city and a tremendous asset.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, time sure flies when you're having fun. Just last week I expressed serious misgivings about the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement (FTA), noting, among other problems, that it set a bad precedent for future trade bills. Those concerns are confirmed today by this bill. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is a bad agreement that protects U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers while ignoring labor standards and the healthcare needs of Moroccan citizens. I warned you last week that a vote for the Australian FTA was a vote against prescription drug reimportation, and it's true again today. We cannot continue to allow USTR to include intellectual property provisions in FTAs that undermine Congress's ability to provide affordable prescription drugs through reimportation. True, we aren't going to be importing drugs from Morocco any time soon, but what happens in the next FTA, and the one after that? It should be clear by now that the USTR is merely a shill for the pharmaceutical industry, engaged in nothing more than closing the door to drug reimportation at the request of the Administration. Unfortunately, the Morocco agreement doesn't stop at undermining the debate over reimportation. In fact, it goes much further by limiting access to potentially life saving drugs in Morocco. Because the agreement limits parallel importation, if a pubic health emergency breaks out, Morocco cannot import affordable drugs from neighboring countries if a U.S. country manufacturers the drug. Once again, the pharmaceutical industry has used the administration and a free trade agreement to protect its profits, without any concern for global health. If Morocco has a public health crisis, it would be forced to purchase drugs from U.S. manufacturers instead of getting immediate access to the same drugs from nearby countries. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been gouging prices here in America for years; just think what they can do to prices when a developing country is in crisis. You would think one provision limiting access to drugs in Morocco would be victory enough for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but this industry just does not stop. Also included in the FTA are limits on the use of test data and market exclusivity provisions that could raise the price of drugs in Morocco and further limit access. Because the FTA limits test data usage and creates 5 years of market exclusivity, the introduction of generic drugs in the Moroccan market will be substantially delayed. When generics are not available, prices increase--along with manufacturers' profits--and poorer citizens have less purchasing power to obtain life saving drugs. There is also the strong possibility that these data and exclusivity provisions will further tie the hands of the Moroccan government during a public health emergency. The FTA and side letter are amazingly vague on whether Morocco can engage in compulsory licensing of otherwise patented drugs during a health crisis. Here again, the pharmaceutical manufacturers will do anything to make sure they are the monopoly power, even when lives are at stake. Today we vote on nothing less than the future course of domestic and international pharmaceutical policies. USTR will continue to use trade agreements to limit our ability to import affordable pharmaceuticals from other countries. It is also clear that future negotiations are going to limit drug access in other countries so that U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers can make even more money abroad. These are bad policies, and we should not let the Administration continue to implement them by slipping them into free trade agreements. I am also concerned that USTR has once again failed to include core labor standard requirements in a free trade agreement. USTR should not continue to use the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in FTAs without developing countries. I understand Morocco is moving in the right direction in terms of labor rights, but there is no reason this FTA should not have held them to the core labor standards developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO standards ensure workers' human rights and their right to organize and strike. We cannot have acceptable free trade without a level playing field, and these standards are the key to ensuring trade between the U.S. and other countries is both free and fair. This is a bad free trade agreement that sets a bad precedent for all future trade negotiations. We cannot continue to let the administration make health policy without Congressional input, and we surely would not let the pharmaceutical industry have their way just because of their large campaign donor status. We also cannot ignore workers' rights by allowing trade partners to enforce their own laws when those laws do not meet international labor standards. I urge my colleagues to vote against the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Morocco Free Trade Agreement and believe it will promote domestic growth in manufacturing and exports. I look forward to seeing this agreement enacted into law. I also support, thank and congratulate the United States Trade Representative and staff in negotiating the inclusion of full duty drawback and duty deferral rights for U.S. manufacturers, exporters and workers in this FTA. Free trade agreements should include no language that eliminates or otherwise restricts the application of duty drawback and duty deferral programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters. The language in the Singapore, Australia, Israel and Jordan FTAs and in the CAFTA, for example, have no such restrictive language and we should continue to model future agreements after these FTAs. This issue is of significant importance to many U.S. manufacturers and exporters, including those in my home State of Louisiana. Duty drawback and duty deferral programs reduce production and operating costs by allowing our manufacturers and exporters to recover duties that were paid on imported materials when the same or similar materials are exported either whole or as a component part of a finished product. Duty drawback positively affects nearly $16 billion of U.S. exports each year. Additionally, nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs are directly related to exported goods that benefit from drawback, and these high quality jobs could be adversely affected by eliminating or restricting drawback. In my own home State of Louisiana, drawback and duty deferral programs provide substantial benefits to local industries, allowing them to compete on a level playing field in the global market. Drawback and deferral prevents outsourcing and saves U.S. manufacturing and jobs. As long as the programs provide a competitive advantage in production and sales for U.S. manufacturers and exporters, they will assist in preventing U.S. jobs from moving offshore. Drawback makes a significant difference to U.S. companies at the margin when exporting to our FTA partners where they compete against foreign producers that either have substantially lower costs of production or enjoy low or zero import duty rates. This export promotion program is one of the last WTO-sanctioned programs that provide a substantial advantage to U.S. companies participating in the export market. The application of these programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters should not be restricted in future free trade agreements that we negotiate with our trading partners. We need to work hard to complete free trade agreements that provide as many competitive advantages as we can to U.S. manufacturers competing in the global market, encourage growth in U.S. exports, and create U.S. jobs.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3313, the So-Called ``Marriage Protection Act.'' This blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the uncontrollable homophobia of the Republican Party and its desperation to change the subject from the quagmire in Iraq. The Republicans' fear of the Federal courts is somewhat surprising. The Supreme Court, after all, despite occasionally tempering the Republicans' hatred of minorities, immigrants, the accused, and others who have the gall to insist on their Constitutional rights, has been pretty good to the Republican Party. It gave them the President they wanted and has given them great leeway to run roughshod over the environment and the disabled in the name of States' rights. Most legal experts agree that this Court would likely uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and yet the Republicans would rather set a new, frightening precedent of letting 50 different State courts be the final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that State judges, rather than Federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law. Thankfully, the right wing wasn't in control of the Republican Party back when desegregation and Miranda warnings were before the courts, as there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too. They would never think of passing a bill today barring African Americans from seeking the protection of Federal courts, but sadly, gay and lesbian Americans incur their wrath over everything from the breakdown of the family to the continued inability of the Red Sox to win the World Series. Their delusion would be funny if it weren't so reckless and harmful. Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about re-directing blame. Everyone here realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our Constitution and our Separation of Powers would be rendered meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: changing the subject from Iraq and attacking defenseless Americans. Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means anything to you, you will ``No'' on this election-year ploy.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Hospital Accreditation Act of 2004. Forty years ago, the Congress abdicated the federal government's regulatory responsibilities to ensure that hospitals meet Medicare requirements. Congress empowered the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) with a unique authority to deem hospitals as eligible for Medicare payments with minimal government interference. That was clearly a mistake. In the decades that JCAHO has had this unsupervised authority, serious inadequacies in hospitals have gone unchecked. Our current process is not working and it's time for the federal government to reassert its authority. This bill would do just that. This bill today responds to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-04-850) raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current system used to accredit and oversee hospitals that serve Medicare beneficiaries. The investigation, based on a retrospective survey of 500 hospitals, indicates that JCAHO failed to detect a large number of serious deficiencies subsequently found later by a team of government inspectors. These deficiencies are not superfluous. They are important, basic minimum standards needed to ensure both a safe environment and quality health care. For example, JCAHO accredited hospitals with inadequate procedures for preventing the spread of infections, inadequate safeguards to assure competent performance of physicians and nurses, and hospitals that outright failed to protect patients and staff from fire-related disasters. While this survey cannot be generalized to the entire hospital community, it implies a troubling lack of compliance with important safety standards and is a signal for change. This is not the first time that problems in the Medicare hospital accreditation and oversight process have come to light. In 1990, we held a hearing on this issue in the Ways and Means Committee. Gail Wilensky, the Medicare Administrator for President George H.W. Bush, expressed concern that JCAHO-accredited hospitals displayed serious deficiencies when subsequently surveyed by government surveyors. In 1999, an investigation by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that JCAHO accreditation surveys were not likely to identify patterns of deficient care. Finally, for the past three consecutive years, CMS has found that JCAHO failed to meet the CMS performance standard for the hospital survey process. This is one more indication of JCAHO's need to improve its performance, and, more importantly, the need to increase CMS' authority to oversee JCAHO. Despite this body of evidence, until now, the federal government has done little to address the problem. This stems in part from the original Medicare law passed by Congress in 1965. In that Act, JCAHO was granted the authority to ``deem'' hospitals as meeting the Medicare conditions of participation and qualify for Medicare payments. As a result, the federal agency administering the Medicare program was not granted adequate oversight authority. The agency had no authority to regularly review JCAHO's surveying processes, to mandate or approve changes to the procedures, or to sanction JCAHO for inadequate performance. No other accrediting organization is immune from government oversight. Thus, Congress delegated oversight to a private entity that is essentially under the control of the very industry it attempts to regulate. In fact, the American Hospital Association and key physician groups appoint approximately 70 percent of the JCAHO Board of Directors! This special status is even more alarming when JCAHO's role in the market is taken into consideration. In addition to its Medicare activities, JCAHO accreditation partially or fully substitutes for state regulators in 49 states, it certifies VA facilities, and is often used by private insurers and plan sponsors as a requirement for plan participation and payments. The hospital oversight process is comprised of a three-legged stool-- the private Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and their delegates at the state level, and the Congress. This report shows that each party needs to act to improve patient safety and assure that taxpayer dollars are spent in facilities that meet Medicare's minimum requirements. Along with Senator Charles Grassley, who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate, the bill I'm introducing today is the first step toward addressing this problem. This legislation would provide CMS with the same oversight authority over JCAHO that it has for all other national organizations with deeming authority. We may need to do more, but this is an important start. In addition, the Administration has also agreed to make significant improvements under its current, limited authority. Administrator McClelland has worked closely with us on this issue and is committed to make the needed changes. Establishing a clear chain of command will improve accountability, and that is our goal. As far as I am concerned, the GAO report indicates that all three legs of the hospital oversight process need to be revamped. JCAHO needs to improve its ability to assess the extent a hospital is meeting the Medicare quality conditions of participation. CMS needs to make better use of the limited authority over JCAHO it currently has and be prepared to assume increased authority with the passage of this legislation. Finally, Congress needs to correct a decision made nearly 40 years ago to allow the federal government to abdicate its regulatory responsibilities to ensure that hospitals meet Medicare requirements. I am are here today to announce our bipartisan, bicameral commitment to work with each other, our colleagues, the Administration and the community to do just that. I encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to support this legislation. It will provide CMS with the tools it needs to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive quality hospital care in a safe environment. The time to act is now. It is a matter of life and death.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I really meant to talk about celebrating the 35th anniversary of Apollo 11, but I can see that my distinguished colleague from California was there with me. I thought we were really talking about accounting, and we are talking about H.R. 3574, which is appropriate, because it is sheer lunacy. While our soldiers are fighting overseas, our children are crying out for better schools, 45 million people have no health insurance, we have set the goal today of ``Let's help the rich get richer.'' Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, let us give more money to the millionaires. Frankly speaking, do you know how high gas prices have gone? Do you know how much jet fuel costs? Do you know how much private jet pilots earn? We must help those people so they do not have to go from $4,000 to $5,000 to fly those little things. And that is what this bill today is doing. I am glad to see we are helping. Why? Right now, corporations can deduct stock options for tax purposes, ha-ha, and not pay the income tax, but they do not have to report those expenses to shareholders on their SEC financial statements. That is what I call sleight of hand. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to not deduct options, then do not take them off your income tax. It makes some sense. This accounting loophole was encouraged by companies like Enron and Cisco to artificially inflate the value of their company while deceiving their investors and evading corporate income tax. It is much simpler than moving to Bermuda. Even Alan Greenspan has criticized this practice. To fix this problem, the FASB board has drafted a rule requiring that we expense the options. It makes some sense. But rather than following FASB, a board made up of professional accountants, I might add, to implement a sensible rule, why, Congress has decided to use their accounting expertise. I look around the room at my fellow Congressmen, and wonder how many of them have taken the accounting course I took? And if they did, they all know that debits are in the column next to the windows, except as one looks around this Chamber, there are windows on four sides. No wonder we are confused. So let the FASB rule be damned; we are going to set some rules of our own about accounting around here. Do my colleagues know what? They anticipate that there will be criticism that lets rich corporate executives off the hook, so they are going to limit it to the top five executives. I say to my colleagues, nice try, but as Warren Buffett points out, that is like saying in a large company which gives everyone a bonus, only five bonuses have to be expensed. This bill requires companies to assume also that stocks have zero volatility. Stocks with zero volatility? Now, that does not pass the laugh test. Ask Martha Stewart about stocks with no volatility. She knows something about stock volatility. I suspect Ken Lay could tell us that it is a real phenomenon that we cannot do away with by legislation. So the bill perpetuates the Bush administration's failed economic policies, while simultaneously lining the pockets of their fat cat friends. And the sponsors of this bill should be proud. It increases the deficit, it falsifies corporate earnings, and it serves the millionaires in this country well.