Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (H.R. 2883). This legislation shows that we can work together across the aisle to improve our child welfare system. Yet this bill is just one step in our ongoing efforts to fix the foster care system. In this time of unacceptable poverty and inequality, we must continue to support families in order to prevent kids from being neglected or abused. As we debate how to shrink our debt, we must also ensure that preserving and improving the safety net that protects our children is a higher priority than protecting special interest tax breaks. Despite the fact that I am not on the Human Resources Subcommittee for the first time in many years, I am pleased that my colleagues still listen to some of my ideas. Last year, Congressman Langevin and I introduced a bill to reduce the high number of foster youth who are victims of identity theft and are unable to secure student loans or even get a credit card. Today's legislation includes a provision from our bill that will provide youth who are about to age out of foster care with a copy of their credit report as well as resources to help clear up any credit issues. This provision is what I hope is the first movement toward ensuring that foster youth leave the system with a clean financial slate and a chance to succeed. There are many important provisions in today's bill: maintaining a set-aside to support caseworker visits with foster children; decreasing the overuse of psychotropic drugs on foster youth, and improving education stability for children in care. Children in foster care are our collective responsibility. The reforms made in this bill will make children safer. I thank the Chairman, the ranking Member, and all the staff involved in crafting this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague, Mr. Moran of Virginia, to reintroduce the Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act, a bill that would end the practice of barring asylum claims by those who have been in our country for more than a year. In 1996, this one-year bar to asylum was enacted as a way to prevent fraudulent claimants from being granted asylum. Sixteen years later, there is no evidence to show that deadlines of this nature are effective in preventing fraud. Rather, the implementation of this law has resulted in the return of refugees to countries where they face persecution because of their gender, religion, nationality, or political involvement. Although the law includes exceptions to excuse those who are determined to have valid reasons for applying for asylum after one year, adjudicators routinely deny applicants who meet these exceptions. People who are attempting to care for their children, hide from their abusers, cope with past trauma, and deal with the challenges of surviving in a new country are repeatedly and arbitrarily denied asylum status because of missing the one-year deadline. Once denied, an applicant has only two other possibilities for safety: to petition for withholding of removal or to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture. Both these forms of relief demand an applicant surmount a much higher standard of proof than asylum and do not allow reunification with family members or provide them permanency. Everyone in Congress can agree that our immigration system is overwhelmed with a massive backlog of cases and in desperate need of reform. The one-year deadline only adds to this amassment of immigration cases and leads to government waste. More importantly, this law is hurting the very people we ought to be helping. This is a human rights issue that must be addressed as quickly as possible, and I implore my colleagues to support this desperately needed legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2587, the misnamed Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This bill dismantles key functions of the National Labor Relations Board and guts more than 70 years of established labor law in our country. If this legislation becomes law, it would eliminate nearly all worker protections when companies illegally fire workers and close or move plants in retaliation for union activities. The proponents of this legislation claim that it will create jobs, but it does no such thing. Instead, it creates a race to the bottom with regard to workers' rights. This bill sends a message that we've abandoned the American worker. H.R. 2587 will encourage employers to move jobs to states with less worker protections. It will also make it easier to outsource jobs to other countries. In my district, we've seen plants close, thousands of workers lose their jobs, and communities hurting as a result. We should be creating good jobs in this country and ensuring that hard working Americans don't have to give up their rights when they go to work in the morning. One way we can do that is by voting against this misguided bill and demonstrating that many of us in Congress still stand with the American worker.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of Chabot College in Hayward, California. Chabot College was the first college opened by the Chabot-Las Postas Community College District. On January 10, 1961 voters approved the formation of a junior college district, with the first board of trustees elected on April 18, 1961. Chabot College opened for classes on September 11, 1961, on a 7.5- acre temporary site in San Leandro, California and an enrollment of 1,163 students. On September 20, 1965 students began classes on the 94- acre Chabot College site in Hayward. Today, Chabot has an enrollment of close to 15,000 students and is a fully accredited institution that offers a curriculum of over 175 majors of study spread among its six academic divisions. Fostering civic responsibility is one of the college-wide learning goals of Chabot. During the 2010 fall semester, senior faculty in the Administration of Justice and Political Science engaged in discussions about ways to revive the culture of civic engagement and service learning at the college. A key outcome of those discussions was an idea for a course in Law and Democracy as well as a Law and Democracy lecture series. California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer will deliver the inaugural lecture in this series on September 15, 2011 and the first Law and Democracy course will be offered during the Fall Semester of 2012. Lockyer's Law and Democracy lecture will be the keynote event of a weeklong celebration and will kick-off three days of student-centered community engagement events that will culminate on Citizenship/ Constitution Day on September 17, 2011. In conjunction with these other events, Chabot will provide its students with a training program in community organizing on September 16th and 17th. A primary goal of the Law and Democracy lecture series is to expose Chabot College students, and the broader community, to a wide range of ideas and policy issues that impact their communities. Additionally, the organizers of the lecture series hope to help initiate conversations in the college and community about civic participation and responsibility. I offer my congratulations to Chabot College on its 50th anniversary and for the launch of its curriculum in Law and Democracy and its Democracy Lecture series. Chabot is committed to nurturing an awareness of the importance of active civic engagement and responsibility in its students. I send best wishes for every success.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called debt limit compromise, S. 365. A compromise is when the two sides each make concessions. This bill fails to meet that definition because all concessions come from Democrats. This debt ceiling legislation protects special interests at the expense of America's working families, children, senior citizens, people who've lost their jobs, and people with disabilities. It punts the difficult decisions to a ``super committee'' of twelve Members of Congress who will be tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in savings. Those twelve people will have the power to cut Social Security benefits, turn Medicare into a voucher, and gut the Medicaid program into oblivion. The rest of Congress will have only the right to vote yes or no on the entire proposal. Unlike the vast majority of legislation, no amendments will be allowed. If the super committee fails, there will be automatic cuts to Medicare and additional draconian cuts on top of the draconian cuts that will be made when this bill is signed into law. Default is a dangerous proposition. But there is only one reason that our country has been pushed to the brink of default: the Republican Tea Party fringe. We are in the midst of a completely manufactured crisis that was orchestrated by this extreme faction of the Republican Party. They are a minority in Congress and in our nation, yet they are holding our nation's economy hostage because Republican leadership continues to pander to them at the detriment of our country and its future. Democrats and Republicans alike have lifted the debt ceiling some 75 times in our history. Paying our bills is a necessary part of responsible governing. This year, I've voted twice to raise the debt limit ceiling. I first did so on May 31, 2011 when Republicans brought a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor. Because of uniform Republican opposition, that vote failed. I next voted this past Saturday to raise the debt ceiling in conjunction with significant spending cuts when the House considered Senator Reid's compromise package. It was far from perfect, but it was much more balanced than the package before us today. Today, the radical wing of the Republican Party has forced a no-win situation. Vote yes on today's ``debt-limit compromise,'' and we limit our ability to grow our economy, create jobs, and protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Vote no and we risk an unprecedented default that would further deteriorate our sputtering economy. We should never have gotten to this point and it is up to those who got us into this mess to get the votes to end this crisis. However I will not allow my vehement opposition to this deal to put our country into default. If my vote is needed to prevent default, I will hold my nose and change my vote to yes. I will do that because governing requires tough choices. If Tea Party Republicans refuse to govern, it is up to the rest of us to do so for them.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act, H.R. 2693. Unlike Speaker Boehner's bill, which has already been defeated in the Senate, this is the compromise bill that is needed to avert a default and protect our fragile economy. Congress needs to step up and start governing. Yet, the Republican majority appears uninterested in anything that has not been vetted by the radical wing of their party or designed to embarrass the President. Today is no exception. Rather than holding a real vote on this bill, it is being brought up under suspension of the rules in order to guarantee failure. This is a procedure we use to name post offices and congratulate sports teams. It is not how we handle serious issues and it is shameful that Republicans are holding a non-serious vote when our nation is three days away from a default. Make no mistake, this is not the legislation I would have written. It relies on cuts to domestic spending that will hurt the poor and the middle class. It includes no revenues, not even ending the egregious tax subsidies for big oil companies and corporate jet owners. However, the legislation does not cut Medicare and Social Security and protects both from automatic cuts in the future. It also saves $1 trillion by winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have been major drivers of our debt. Finally, unlike the failed Boehner bill, this legislation provides certainty and stability by extending the debt ceiling through next year and ensuring that we will not be on the brink of default once again in a few months. The long-term fiscal health of our country can only be improved if we make the investments necessary to create jobs and if we put revenues on the table. Unfortunately, House Republicans refused to consider the balanced approach that the American people wanted. Instead, they have driven us to the edge of default and the economic calamity that would result. Now is the time to act to end this crisis. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a responsible solution to the current crisis urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 627, Speaker Boehner's refusal-to-compromise, short-term bill that moves us closer to an unprecedented default. This bill is not designed to become law. The Senate has made clear the votes aren't there for passage. If it did somehow reach the President's desk, he's publicly declared his intent to veto it. Yet, here we are in the House of Representatives, wasting what little time we have left before the August 2nd deadline for default, considering this pointless piece of ideology just to appease the Tea Party. If this doesn't make clear to the American public that the House Republican Majority is incapable of governing, I don't know what does. The Boehner bill fails to address the number one crisis facing our nation: the instability of our financial standing. By providing only a short term debit limit increase--and guaranteeing we are in this same battle in a few short months--this bill would still lead to a downgrading of U.S. credit which would lead to higher interest rates and a tax on all American families. The Boehner bill forces our country into this dangerous predicament solely to drive the extreme Republican agenda that demands protection of special interest tax breaks at the expense of vital public programs which people's lives depend on: namely, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. By making clear their refusal to consider any tax increases--even proposals to end corporate welfare for Big Oil and tax breaks for corporate jet owners--Boehner's ``solution'' puts a target on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Because the immediate savings in the bill would decimate discretionary spending for the next decade, the only other place to turn will be these social insurance programs that people have paid into their whole lives. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid would be mined for savings at levels never before seen. The ability of these programs to continue to guarantee financial and health security to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and--in the case of Medicaid, families with low incomes--would be in serious jeopardy. Avoiding default is critical. It's something Presidents and Congresses from both sides of the aisle have always worked together to do. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner's bill is strictly partisan. It fails to meet the goal of long-term stability and, at the same time, endangers fundamentally important programs that Americans depend upon. A yes vote on this bill means you don't think the threats of default are real and that you don't believe in guaranteeing Medicare and Social Security for our nation's seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medigap Medical Loss Ratio Improvement Act. The legislation improves consumer protections in the Medigap marketplace by raising the minimum percentage of premium dollars that must go toward medical care. I'm joined by my colleagues Henry Waxman, Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone, Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee as original cosponsors of the legislation. Senator Kerry (D-MA) is introducing the companion bill in the Senate. The medical loss ratio, MLR, is the percentage of premium dollars an insurance plan spends on the provision of medical care, rather than administrative costs, profits, executive compensation, or other expenses. It is an important point of information for consumers because it is a concrete way for people to measure the value of a health insurance product and to compare among other plans in the marketplace. As part of the new health reform law, insurers in the private health insurance marketplace must now meet a minimum medical loss ratio percentage of 80 percent in the individual market and 85 percent in the group marketplace. The law also requires all Medicare Advantage plans, private plans offered through Medicare, to meet an 85 percent MLR standard by 2014. In 1990, Congress first passed legislation standardizing Medigap policies and instituting minimum MLR standards in reaction to evidence of widespread sale of duplicative policies with high overhead. Today, more than nine million Medicare beneficiaries purchase private supplemental Medigap policies to help cover cost sharing and deductibles in traditional Medicare. The Medigap Medical Loss Ratio Improvement Act updates the MLR standards for Medigap insurers--increasing the percentages to levels put forth in health reform for other products. Specifically, it will raise the MLR from 65 percent to 80 percent in the individual market and from 75 percent to 85 percent in the group marketplace. To give insurers time to prepare for this change, it would not become effective until 2014. It is endorsed by organizations representing millions of senior citizens and consumers of all ages, including: AARP, AFSCME, Alliance of Retired Americans, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Community Catalyst, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, Medicare Rights Center, National Council on Aging, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center. In endorsing the bill, AARP highlights that, ``AARP supports this change because it will provide greater transparency and accountability for expenditures made by health insurance issuers, and encourage them to become more efficient in their operations to help ensure that consumers receive fair value for their premium dollars.'' This bill should garner bipartisan support. At a February 10, 2011 hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, a Republican Member questioned CMS Actuary Rick Foster about this issue: ``. . . Medigap policies that seniors purchase to supplement traditional Medicare are only required to meet a medical loss ratio of 65 percent . . . do you think that the MLR policy should be applied equitably across the line?'' He answered that ``. . . you could probably make a good case that if it makes sense in general then it would make sense for the broader spectrum, including Medigap policies.'' The Member responded, ``Well, I would think that most people would agree that if we are going to do something we should do it equally.'' I agree. That's exactly what we're doing with the Medigap Medical Loss Ratio Improvement Act today--we are extending a commonsense consumer protection to private Medigap plans. I encourage our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us to enact this sensible improvement to existing law for those who purchase private Medigap insurance.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Janice Hahn, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the residents of California's 36th Congressional District chose Janice Hahn last week in a special election to succeed our esteemed colleague Jane Harman. Jane will be missed, but we welcome Janice to Congress where she will undoubtedly serve as a powerful champion for her constituents. She begins her career in Congress with a strong record of fighting for jobs, the environment and working families. As a city of Los Angeles councilwoman, she led successful initiatives to improve her community. She created jobs by standing with unions and advocating for development to promote tourism. She worked to clean the air in L.A. by addressing the pollution from the ports and by enacting strong diesel truck emission standards. She stood with working families through her support of living wages and health care. Janice carries on the legacy of her father, Kenny Hahn, a former Los Angeles County supervisor and a passionate civil rights advocate. As a United States Congresswoman, Janice will surely add more victories to her already long list of accomplishments. She is joined today by her son Danny; daughter, Katy; son-in-law, John; and three grandchildren--Brooklyn, McKenna and Josiah.

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STARK. Please join me and all of the California delegation in welcoming Janice.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ridiculous legislation quickly cobbled together by House Republicans to appease their Tea Party fringe. The so-called ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' Act (H.R. 2560) is a dangerous political stunt that pushes our Nation right up to the edge of default. With this bill--better called the Slash, Burn and Pander Act--House Republicans are taking our country to the brink of insolvency and financial devastation to make absolutely sure that rich people in America keep their tax breaks, that big oil and gas companies continue to receive their corporate welfare, and that the pharmaceutical industry be spared from contributing to our economic recovery. The first title of the bill would immediately slash federal spending at such massive levels as to endanger our government's ability to perform basic functions. If enacted, it would likely prevent the government from sending out Social Security checks to seniors, from providing unemployment insurance benefits during our ongoing economic crisis, from conducting NIH research to find cures for deadly diseases, and from ensuring our food is safe to eat. The second title would enforce arbitrary and extreme annual federal government spending limits. The bill pays lip service to protecting Medicare and Social Security in the near term--because even right- wingers understand the importance of these programs to the American people. However, there is no mathematical way that the federal government could meet these draconian limits without putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block. The third title would prohibit the debt ceiling from being raised until Congress sends a Balanced Budget Amendment to the States for ratification--all before the August 2nd deadline when we begin to default. This Amendment to the Constitution would require even more restrictive spending limits over time. Importantly, it would also mandate a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate--a nearly impossible hurdle--to ever close corporate tax loopholes or enact tax increases. With their Slash, Burn and Pander Act, House Republicans are saying to the American public that the federal government will no longer provide the services and programs they value. At the same time, Republicans would make special interest tax breaks permanent by requiring a super-majority to change existing law. What's most stunning about this debate is that everyone knows this bill has no chance of becoming law. In just two weeks, the United States will start defaulting on its obligations. The House's actions today waste precious time and take us further away from a solution. President Obama already put a deficit deal on the table that goes beyond what many Democrats and I are comfortable with. House Republicans rejected him out-of-hand and, instead, have offered the radical legislation before us today. The fact that this inane piece of legislation is on the floor highlights the difference between governing and campaigning--and makes clear that many on the Republican side of the aisle remain unable to make that distinction. I urge my colleagues to join my in voting ``no'' on the Slash, Burn and Pander Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the California Congressional delegation, I rise to highlight the career of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who has announced that she will retire after the 112th Congress. Congresswoman Woolsey broke barriers when she began her career as the first former welfare recipient to serve in Congress. As a young single mother with three children, she needed public assistance to make ends meet--even though she was employed. This sensitivity to working families has shone through her Congressional career. Rep. Woolsey serves as a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. On this committee, she helped to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, which protects Americans who need temporary employment leave due to a serious illness or to care for a sick family member. Recently, Congresswoman Woolsey proposed ``the Balancing Act,'' which will help families by promoting public universal pre- school, investments in child care, universal school breakfast, benefits for part-time workers, and telecommuting incentives. She has served as co-chair of the Progressive Caucus where she led our efforts to present the progressive voice in Congress and use our strength as a large voting block to influence legislation. She continues to be an active progressive leader. Congresswoman Woolsey vocally opposed the Iraq war from day one. The San Jose Mercury News hailed her as ``the unofficial matriarch of the [anti-war] movement in Congress.'' She has led the way for peace by introducing the first resolution to demand that we bring our troops home. Congresswoman Woolsey fought to pass landmark health care reform last Congress by supporting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. She led our efforts to include a public health insurance option in the law in order to inject real competition against the private health insurance industry. Though we lost that battle as part of the health reform law, she has taken the lead in authoring legislation to amend the law to institute a public option. That legislation would save the Federal Government $68 billion and deserves to be part of the solution as Congress focuses on efforts to reduce the deficit. Congresswoman Woolsey has always worked to protect the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil during her tenure as a senior member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology and as a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. She is working to safeguard her district's shores from oil spills by introducing a bill that would designate the Sonoma coastline as a National Marine Sanctuary. Congresswoman Woolsey simply personifies public service. She has been one of the most sought out and responsive representatives. Each week her Washington office receives and responds to over 3,000 constituent letters, phone calls, and emails. It has been an honor to serve with Lynn over the past 20 years. Thanks to Congresswoman Woolsey's service, America is a better place for working families. I know we haven't heard the last from Lynn Woolsey. I look forward to continuing to work together in the 112th Congress and in her next venture, which I am sure will continue to advance the progressive causes she believes in so strongly.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 68. This legislation will not end our military involvement in Libya. Both simply maintain the status quo and appease Republican Members who want to score political points against the President. Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans have voted for deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs. We could better achieve deficit reduction by swiftly ending the Libyan war and accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Congress has the power of the purse. Our nation has been at war in Libya for 97 days and Congress has never authorized the conflict. We need to completely defund operations in Libya and put an end to this conflict. It is time for us to come together, use our constitutional authority, and apply this critical check on the executive branch. At a time when we continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot afford to pursue another military adventure that is not in our national interest. We must get out of this war now. I urge my colleagues to vote against this toothless bill, and instead defund operations in Libya in the upcoming 2012 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2278. This legislation will not end our military involvement in Libya. Both simply maintain the status quo and appease Republican Members who want to score political points against the President. Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans have voted for deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs. We could better achieve deficit reduction by swiftly ending the Libyan war and accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Congress has the power of the purse. Our nation has been at war in Libya for 97 days and Congress has never authorized the conflict. We need to completely defund operations in Libya and put an end to this conflict. It is time for us to come together, use our constitutional authority, and apply this critical check on the executive branch. At a time when we continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot afford to pursue another military adventure that is not in our national interest. We must get out of this war now. I urge my colleagues to vote against this toothless bill, and instead defund operations in Libya in the upcoming 2012 Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act. This bill makes devastating cuts to nutrition programs. It also undermines the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to protect our food supply and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to rein in the reckless speculation that is driving up gas prices. The cuts to nutrition programs in this bill would put hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens at risk. Working families, the millions who remain out of work, and senior citizens trying to survive on fixed incomes are the Americans who continue to feel the effects of the recession most painfully. This bill adds insult to injury by literally taking food off of their tables. In my district, there are more than 90,000 people facing hunger each day. That is unacceptable. Fortunately, they have some support, including through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which offers nutrition education to pregnant women and mothers and provides food to meet the nutritional needs of young children. The $686 million dollars that this bill cuts from WIC means 200,000 to 350,000 people will lose access to this program. This bill would also slash the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which primarily serves senior citizens living on less than $14,000 a year. The proposed $38 million in cuts to this program would force 150,000 seniors to lose the regularly delivered box of food that they depend on to survive. Perhaps those turned away from WIC or CSFP could go to a local food bank for assistance? No longer. This bill cuts $50 million from the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) that supplies food banks, so the shelves will be empty when people come for help. Doing away with just one week's worth of the Bush tax cuts is more than enough to prevent the cuts to WIC, CSFP, and TEFAP proposed in this bill. Yet that's not what we're debating today. While Republican leaders defend their tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, people are going hungry. Something is seriously wrong in this country if we are willing to pay for a week of tax cuts for the wealthy but cannot afford to feed all of our people. We cannot balance the budget or erase the deficit by taking more away from those who already have the least. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the California Congressional delegation, I rise to highlight the career of Patricia K. Macht, who is retiring after more than fifteen years of service with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS). Ms. Macht is currently the Deputy Executive Officer for External Affairs at California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). She has served under six CEOs and Interim CEOs, and four deputy executive officers. During her tenure, she has attended more than 400 committee meetings and 200 board meetings. While at CalPERS, Ms. Macht established the vision, guiding principles, structure, and resources to administer a world-class communications function. She spearheaded the creation of a media relations program, an executive speechwriting support function and special events support services. She maintained the high quality of the services provided, keeping up with the tremendous changes in speed of communications methods. Ms. Macht also ensured that CaIPERS communications did not take place in a vacuum, as she led the integration of governmental affairs and public affairs and added a stakeholder relations function. She greatly expanded the system's ability to ensure that all stakeholders groups have equal access, timely and quality communication, and participation in the System's policy formulation and administration as possible. Through this integration, CalPERS has enhanced efficiency, access, and timeliness of dissemination of information and education. Ms. Macht worked cooperatively and collaboratively regarding communications and advocacy with other leaders in the public pension community, including the National Institute of Retirement Security (NIRS), National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA), California Association of Public Retirement Systems (CALAPERS), State Association of County Retirement Systems (SACRS) and numerous other industry groups and association. Ms. Macht greatly expanded the reach to CalPERS 1.6 million members. Under her leadership, the CaIPERS communications office issued more than 800 press releases, resulting in more than a million references to CalPERS in local, state, national and international media articles. She guided the development, execution and dissemination of the widely-read CaIPERS' ``PERSpective'' newsletter. She also created the institution's ``Retirement Planning Month'', the CalPERS Member Network video programming on cable television, and a robust CaIPERS website that is continuously improving to meet the needs of our members and employers. Ms. Macht created the first California Retirement Dialogue summit-- bringing stakeholders from labor, employers, and policy experts together to review and discuss pension issues in the wake of the pressures upon employers to meet their pension obligations due to the market downturn. She received the 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award for her career in the communication field from the State Information Officers Council and garnered high praise from all who worked with her. She began her career in government as the Director of Public Affairs and Education at the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Prior to entering public service, she worked in corporate communications/public affairs positions in the private sector for five years. Previously, she was a journalist for 10 years covering local government issues in the state of Maryland. Ms. Macht has a Bachelor's Degree in journalism from the University of Maryland. Once again, I would like to commend Ms. Macht for her dedicated public service and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ms. Linda Jackson- Whitmore, an extraordinary teacher who will soon retire. Her students refer to her affectionately as Ms. J. Ms. J started teaching at Washington High School in Fremont, California in 1975 as a drama instructor, director, choreographer and Performing Arts Club advisor. She transferred to Irvington High School in Fremont, California in 1978, performing the same duties. Ms. J has been on the staff of Irvington High School as the Artistic Director for 31 years and Artistic Director of the Irvington Conservatory Theatre since 1990 where she has directed two major productions each year and over 70 shows during her professional career. Adding to her extra-curricular duties, she volunteers as Advisor for the Black Student Union Club, Advanced Dance Club, Hip Hop Dance Club and the Step Club. In 1986 she was accepted as a Fulbright Exchange Teacher and taught in London for a year. Another acknowledgement of her teaching excellence was her selection as Mentor Teacher in Theatre Arts for the Fremont Unified School District in 1984-1986 and 1997-98. Ms. J has also served as a part-time instructor in the Theatre Arts Department at San Francisco State University, San Francisco Community College and serves as a high school outreach instructor for Ohlone Community College, a position she has held since 1999. She received her Bachelor of Arts and Secondary Teaching Credential in 1973 from San Francisco State University. In 1980 she received her Masters of Arts and Community College Credential from the University of San Francisco. She is a member of the California Teachers Association, Educational Theatre Association, International Thespian Society, National Education Association, Fremont Unified School District Teachers Association, National Forum of Black Administrators, Black Women Organized for Political Action and a Life Member of the NAACP. Ms. J is the recipient of many honors and awards that include the International Thespian Society Most Inspirational Theatre Educator Award and the California Congress of Parent/Student/Teacher Association of Outstanding Service Award, in addition to recognition of her community service. Ms. Linda Jackson-Whitmore has given many students, through the years, guidance in the theatre arts and will leave a lasting legacy as the instructor who gave a thespian voice to our youth. I join her colleagues in wishing her well in her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 51, a bipartisan resolution directing the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya within 15 days. I'm proud to support this resolution by Representatives Kucinich, Burton, and Capuano. It gives Congress, and therefore the American people, the power to decide whether America enters into or continues a war which destroys our economy, which destroys unnecessarily human lives who do not oppose us and are not a threat. For us to be wantonly killing people around the globe, entering into a war--there's no other question about that--without permission from the American people through this body is unconstitutional, it's wrong, and we should support the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 51, a bipartisan resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces from Libya within 15 days after the adoption of this resolution until Congress is able to review how our Nation should move forward. With no stated goal, no input from Congress and no end in site, a continuation of our involvement in Libya is unreasonable and unconstitutional. With Congress considering cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other vital programs, we cannot afford yet another war. We have now been involved in a war with Libya for over 60 days with no constitutionally required authorization for the use of military force or declaration of war. And we were not attacked. It is time for Congress to reassert its Constitutional war powers authority and end the war in Libya. I am proud to support this resolution by Representatives Kucinich, Burton and Capuano that gives Congress, and therefore the American people, the power to decide whether America enters into or continues a war. I urge my colleagues to follow the will of the American people and support this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to the reauthorization of PATRIOT Act provisions. While it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that I find the PATRIOT Act objectionable in its entirety, the roving wiretap, ``any tangible thing,'' and lone wolf provisions of the law are by far the most toxic to our civil liberties. Nothing has changed that makes the extension of wiretapping of citizens, searches of our private records and information, or warrantless surveillance of individuals not connected to terrorism more acceptable. Now is the time to end what was supposed to be a temporary, state-of-emergency response to the events of 9/11. Over a decade later, organizations from the Cato Institute to the American Civil Liberties Union have documented abuses of the law, and Osama bin Laden has been killed--though there is no evidence that the PATRIOT Act helped to find him. The government's extension of the PATRIOT Act is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Republicans support smaller government but want continued warrantless searches of their constituents. President Obama campaigned on the promise of abandoning the PATRIOT Act, calling it a ``dangerous and shoddy'' law, yet has done nothing to make good on that pledge. Let's end this duplicity. The importance of empowering our intelligence agencies to help protect us does not supersede the importance of preserving our civil liberties. Until a balance is reached, I will continue to vote against the PATRIOT Act and its provisions and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act. It does not make sense to waste billions of tax dollars on an already bloated defense department, particularly in our current economic state. This bill is loaded with unnecessary and redundant funding. For example, it calls for the reckless continuation of the V-22 Osprey program, which has killed over 30 Americans in training alone, and whose termination could save us $10-12 billion over the next 10 years. Defense spending currently constitutes almost 60 percent of our discretionary spending. As we are forced to consider cutting important programs that working families depend on, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have--especially on an overly saturated Department of Defense. Americans have voiced their priorities: They want jobs, affordable health care and better education. This Congress must listen. I have not voted in support of a defense authorization bill throughout my tenure in Congress and I do not intend to start now.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues and fellow Ways and Means members Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), and my colleague Joe Courtney (D-CT), to introduce the Recovering Missing Children Act. Today, May 25th is National Missing Children's Day. This legislation will help state and local law enforcement access the resources they need to bring missing children home safely. Each year, more than 200,000 children are abducted by family members. These are usually not the stories that make national headlines, but the effects can be just as devastating. Even when there is a happy ending and young people are returned home, challenges remain. As one young woman who experienced a family abduction explains, ``I had to get to know my mother from scratch, while at the same time dealing with my own prejudices and fear I had built up toward this stranger from years on the run and the negative messages from my father.'' In the case of a missing child, any information that might lead to the child's return is crucial. Recently, the U.S. Treasury Department studied 1,700 parental abductions and found that in over one third of the cases, tax returns were filed using the missing child's Social Security number. Hundreds of those tax returns had a new address for the child and the abductor. Tragically, law enforcement officers were not allowed access to this information. The Recovering Missing Children Act amends the Internal Revenue Code to add the case of a missing or exploited child to the list of exceptions allowing the release of Internal Revenue Service, IRS, tax return information. The privacy of one's IRS information is vital and must be protected. However, the law makes exceptions for the release of select information in specific cases, such as for child support enforcement, verifying information for Medicare benefits, or if someone has defaulted on a student loan. The chance to find a missing child and bring him or her home deserves such an exception. The Recovering Missing Children Act requires a Federal court order for the release of this information to ensure that taxpayers' rights to privacy are respected. It also limits the release of such information to only Federal, state and local law enforcement agents personally and directly involved in the investigation of a missing or exploited child. The vast majority of missing children cases are investigated by state and local law enforcement. They need all possible resources at their disposal to make sure these children are safe and home where they belong. I urge my colleagues to stand with myself, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Courtney on behalf of missing children and the law enforcement officers who diligently work for their safety. I ask for your support of the Recovering Missing Children Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Mr. Polis (D- CO), Mr. Frank (D-MA), Mr. Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Mr. Paul (R-TX) to introduce the Small Business Tax Equity Act. Our tax code currently undercuts legal medical marijuana dispensaries by preventing them from taking the full range of deductions allowed for other small businesses. While unfair to these small business owners, the tax code also punishes the thousands of patients who rely on them for safe, legal, reliable access to medical marijuana as recommended by a doctor. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would create an exception to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E to allow businesses operating in accordance with state law to take tax deductions associated with the sale of medical marijuana. This legislation is one in a series of bills being introduced today that would help ensure the fair treatment of medical marijuana businesses and the patients they serve. Forty years after the start of the War on Drugs, 16 states and the District of Columbia now regulate and allow the sale of marijuana for medical purposes. Our tax laws have not kept pace with these changes in state law. My legislation would amend a portion of the Internal Revenue Code that was intended to prevent criminal drug dealers from claiming tax benefits. Under this bill, dispensaries operating legally under state law will no longer be prohibited from taking tax deductions and credits attributed to the sale of marijuana to patients. Medical marijuana dispensaries operate legally in my home state and pay federal, state, and local taxes. California now collects over $100 million in state taxes annually from these small businesses. They should be able to claim the full range of benefits under the U.S. tax code just like other businesses that operate legally under state law. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of fair tax treatment for the medical marijuana industry and to ensure safe access to the patients it serves.