Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad that this bill was not worked out in committee because the differences, which I will describe shortly, are simple and there could have been a compromise, it appears to me, and certainly we have a substitute which will come up and we, I think, have to discuss both. Let us start out by suggesting that I would like to agree with the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana that it is probably a good idea to not encourage people to spend foolishly, to buy two extra pair of eyeglasses or go out for an extra shot of Botox or something at the end of the year just to use up the money in their flexible spending account. The problem, and where we would disagree, is that the gentleman's bill is not paid for, and this does push us further into debt; and our bill and the differences, and we have some, is paid for. If the gentleman wanted to say let us compromise right now and pay for half of it, we could get this done in 15 minutes. I am easy. But that is basically our difference. The Republican bill creates more of a deficit, and it does discourage people from spending foolishly at the end of the year and it costs, what, 8 billion bucks over 10. Therein is the major difference. I would like to discuss one minor difference which is complex and which our substitute drops. The gentleman from Louisiana, the Republican bill, allows members of a flexible spending account to transfer money into a health savings account. The only problem with that is that, insofar as the regulations appear now, one cannot have a flexible spending account and a health savings account at the same time, so that to transfer the money from the flexible spending account into the health savings account, they have to drop their flexible spending account, and then the next year they would not have 500 bucks to transfer. I mean, it is a way to encourage, or perhaps force, people into dropping a flexible spending account and move into a health savings account. I am not sure that was his intention, but that is the reality. And there is almost no one who would qualify to transfer money, the $500, say, from the flexible spending account into a health savings account. As a matter of fact, it is scored at 20 million bucks over 10 years; so if it is $20 at maybe 1 million people who would use it, and if our purpose is to encourage health savings accounts, I would suggest to the gentleman that that is a separate debate and perhaps not really pertinent to the question of whether we should allow people this carryover and repeal the use-it-or-lose-it provision. Had we had a chance to mark this up in committee and work it out in some detail, I think we could have worked out a system, perhaps brought two bills to the floor. The bill, I know, and I hate to be critical, but I know it is introduced as a centerpiece of the week for the uninsured, and I am afraid that this bill does nothing for the uninsured. We cannot have a flexible spending account and not have access to insurance. So we really are not dealing with the uninsured here. People who have flexible spending accounts, as a matter of fact, probably have very generous and good health insurance coverage. So it is somewhat disingenuous, and that is the harshest thing I can think of, to suggest that this is going to have any effect or impact in Cover the Uninsured Week. So if I could summarize just for a moment, there is a part of the bill which would help people and prevent them from frivolous spending from their flexible spending accounts. We concur in that, and our substitute includes that. Our major difference is, and we could have a vote, is it worth increasing the deficit by $8.5 billion. We have some simple ways to pay for that. For instance, not letting corporations reincorporate offshore and avoid Federal income tax on their corporate income, a theory that has some bipartisan support. There are some egregious loopholes that were dreamed up mostly by the Enron Corporation, which we also closed. I do not think anybody would suggest that those loopholes ought to continue. So in a minimal way, we changed the Tax Code to make this, and it is a principle, we ought to pay for things that we are providing, and that is it. We would leave the health savings account portion out. We would allow people to transfer the $500 and carry it forward so they would not have a use-it- or-lose-it, and we would pay for it. Other than that I do not know what we could find to disagree about for the next 2 hours, but in my inimitable way I will be just as disagreeable as the gentleman from Louisiana would like me to be. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is nothing in this bill that would prohibit a woman from using the benefits of the flexible savings account for an abortion; is that correct?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before I recognize the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, to remind my good friend from Louisiana that the tax provisions in our substitute were recommended by the bipartisan, bicameral Joint Committee on Taxation; and these provisions have already passed on a bipartisan basis in the other body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) 2 minutes for economic logic and 2 minutes for righteous indignation, for a total of 4 minutes. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, during the past several hours we have had a good debate on this bill, and I think we have agreed to some of the basic principles that the flexible savings accounts should allow a reduction of the use-it-or-lose-it rule. We had attempted to offer a compromise to get our Republican colleagues to just pay for half of the bill, which was turned down. And the bill has, indeed, many supporters. But what we have seen during the course of this current administration is indirectly a complete raid on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Basically, the Republicans have spent all of the surplus in Social Security and Medicare, and that, in my opinion, is indefensible. Whether we agree about flexible savings accounts or medical savings accounts is not the issue. This bill directly, specifically, transfers out of the trust funds $3.4 billion. The Republicans are raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Now, that may not sound like a lot to my colleagues across the aisle, but to the people who depend on Social Security and Medicare, the idea that they are stealing money out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds blatantly, I think they will find offensive. This reduction in receipts should not be permitted to occur. It will not harm this bill. The bill will go forward exactly as the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana has outlined it and has prevailed. The only difference is our motion to recommit asks us all to stand up and take the pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare and its trust funds for all of those who depend on their benefits in this country. This bill takes care of well-employed, well-insured individuals. This does not help any uninsured people at all. It gives an additional benefit to people with first-class medical insurance. Why then should we spoil an otherwise decent bill by taking the first step to destroy Medicare and Social Security for people who are unable to get health insurance? That is wrong. We have all committed to protect Social Security and Medicare. You cannot oppose this motion to recommit and say you are protecting it. You are stealing almost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years out of these trust funds. To support our motion to recommit would merely say find it someplace else; take it out of general revenues, take it out of trade, take it out of anything, but do not take it out of the hard-earned benefits that our senior citizens are entitled to. This could be the first step toward destroying the financial viability of Medicare and Social Security. If you vote for our motion to recommit, you are standing up and suggesting that you will protect the trust funds that underlie Social Security and Medicare. If you vote against it, you are saying, ``We don't care. Take the seniors' money. What the heck. We can spend it. We have spent everybody else's money. We have spent our grandkids' money.'' I ask you, out of compassion, those of us who are seniors might not be able to get a job anyplace else if I am not reelected. My Social Security, please do not steal it. Do not make my little children go out and get an extra paper route to take care of me in my dotage. We need this. Our parents need it. We must protect our children. So, to repeat, the bill will go through exactly as the Republicans have crafted it; but if you vote for our motion to recommit, you get the added benefit of saying to every senior in your district, I stood up and protected your Social Security and Medicare benefits by protecting the trust funds to which this money would go. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will then reserve my time and precede his closing and try and warm up the audience for what I know will be eloquent remarks.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), as we are blessed with his late arrival. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4280, legislation that would undermine the right of patients and their families to seek appropriate compensation and penalties when they, or a loved one, are harmed or even killed by an incompetent health care provider. At best, this bill is a wrong-headed approach to the problem of rising malpractice health insurance costs. At worst, it is designed to protect bad doctors, HMOs, and other health care providers from being held accountable for their actions. Either way, this bill is harmful to consumers and should be defeated. The most ludicrous aspect of this debate today is the fact that it is completely unnecessary. The House already passed this exact same legislation last March and there is no need for us to be here debating it again. The only reason that Republicans are bringing up this bill today is that it is ``Cover the Uninsured Week'' and they have no real proposals to help cover the uninsured. So, they are trotting out medical malpractice reform so they can have another vote that doctors appreciate and they can again blame the Senate for not taking action on the legislation. It is political showmanship pure and simple--it has no other meaning. This bill is identical to H.R. 5 which was passed last year, so if my comments look familiar, it is because I am raising the exact same points in opposition. The Republican Leadership has once again brought forth a bill that favors their special interests at the expense of patients and quality health care. Doctors, hospitals, HMOs, health insurance companies, nursing homes, and other health care providers would all love to see their liability risk reduced. Unfortunately, this bill attempts to achieve that goal solely on the backs of America's patients. I said, ``attempts to achieve that goal'' intentionally. Despite the rhetoric from the other side, there is absolutely nothing in H.R. 4280 that guarantees a reduction in medical malpractice premiums. There is not one line to require that the medical malpractice insurance industry--in exchange for capping their liability--return those savings to doctors and other providers they insure through lower malpractice premiums. To quote one of many economists on this matter, Frank A. Sloan, an economics professor from Duke, recently said, ``If anyone thinks caps on pain and suffering are going to work miracles overnight, they're wrong.'' In fact, the outcome of this bill could have zero impact on lowering malpractice premiums and instead go into the pocketbooks of the for-profit medical malpractice industry. Of course, the bill's proponents avoid mentioning that very real possibility. Proponents of this bill also like to say that they are taking California's successful medical malpractice laws and putting them into effect for the Nation. This is also hyperbole. California did not simply institute a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards. The much more important thing California did was to institute unprecedented regulation of the medical malpractice insurance industry. This regulation limits annual increases in premiums and provides the Insurance Commissioner with the power and the tools to disapprove increases proposed by the insurance industry. It is this insurance regulation that has maintained lower medical malpractice premiums. Yet, the bill before us does absolutely nothing to regulate the insurance industry at all. Supporters of this bill would have you believe that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving health care costs through the roof. In fact, for every $100 spent on medical care in 2000, only 56 cents can be attributed to medical malpractice costs--that's one half of one percent. In addition, a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office highlights the same fact. Specifically the report states, ``Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 top 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.'' So, supporters are spreading false hope that capping medical malpractice awards will reduce the costs of health care in our country by any measurable amount. It won't. What supporters of this bill really do not want you to understand is how bad this bill would be for consumers. The provisions of this bill would prohibit juries and courts from providing awards they believe reasonably compensate victims for the harm that has been done to them. H.R. 4280 caps non-economic damages. By setting an arbitrary $250,000 cap on this portion of an award, the table is tilted against seniors, women, children, and people with disabilities. Medical malpractice awards break down into several categories. Economic damages are awarded based on how one's future income is impacted by the harm caused by medical malpractice. There are no caps on this part of the award. But, by capping non-economic damages, this bill would artificially and arbitrarily lower awards for those without tremendous earning potential. This means that a housewife or a senior would get less than a young, successful businessman for identical injuries. Is that fair? I don't think so. The limits on punitive damages are severe. Punitive damages are seldom awarded in malpractice cases, but their threat is an important deterrent. And, in cases of reckless conduct that cause severe harm, it is irresponsible to forbid such awards. The issue of rising malpractice insurance costs is a real concern. I support efforts by Congress to address that problem. That is why I would have voted for the Democratic alternative legislation that Reps. Conyers and Dingell brought to the Rules Committee last night. Unlike H.R. 4280, the Dingell/Conyers alternative would not benefit the malpractice insurance industry at the expense of America's patients. Instead, it addresses the need for medical malpractice insurance reform--learning from the experience of California--to rein in increasing medical malpractice premiums. Rather than enforcing an arbitrary $250,000 cap, the bill makes reasonable tort reforms that address the problems in the malpractice arena--penalties for frivolous lawsuits and enacting mandatory mediation to attempt to resolve cases before they go to court. It also requires the insurance industry to project the savings from these reforms and to dedicate these savings to reduced medical malpractice premiums for providers. The Dingell/Conyers bill (H.R. 1219) is a real medical malpractice reform bill that works for doctors and patients alike. The Democratic alternative bill is such a good bill that the Republican leadership refused to let it be considered on the House floor today. They were afraid that if Members were given a choice between these two bills, they would have voted for the Democratic bill. Once again the House Republican leadership has used their power to control the rules to stymie democratic debate. Medical malpractice costs are an easy target. My Republican colleagues like to simplify it as a fight between America's doctors and our Nation's trial lawyers. That is a false portrayal. Our medical malpractice system provides vital patient protection. The bill before us drastically weakens the effectiveness of our Nation's medical malpractice laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this wrong-headed and harmful approach to reducing the cost of malpractice premiums. It is the wrong solution for America's patients and their families.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, in honor of ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' I am pleased today to join with my colleague Rep. Sherrod Brown and more than 80 additional cosponsors in introducing the ``Medicare Early Access Act.'' This important legislation would provide an affordable health insurance option for the fastest growing segment of the nearly 44 million uninsured Americans--those ages 55-64. In 2002, 43.6 million Americans were uninsured. There are many approaches to how we should address this growing problem. As most of my colleagues know, I am an advocate of a universal health care system in which each and every American would have health coverage. That is the most fair, affordable, and sustainable solution to our national health care needs. However, that won't be accomplished overnight. In the meantime, there are steps that Congress can and should be taking to develop immediate, if smaller, steps to providing people affordable health insurance coverage options. One such step is to pass legislation that would provide certain groups of individuals the option of buying into Medicare--a program with a proven track record that works. That's exactly what the Medicare Early Access Act does for people age 55 through 64. As we all know, the baby-boomers are quickly approaching retirement, and health insurance is a major concern. Unfortunately, retiree health benefits have vanished or are quickly disappearing, leaving people with few or no affordable coverage options. A recent employer survey suggests that only 38 percent of large employers offer any type of retiree health benefits. Other recent research shows that 10 percent of the largest employers terminated all subsidized health benefits for future retirees in 2003. With shrinking retiree benefits and no affordable options available in the individual market, people age 55 through 64 are often uninsured or gravely underinsured. Besides the 3.5 million uninsured between ages 55-64, another 3 million are forced to buy inadequate, overpriced coverage in the individual market. Most near elderly cannot purchase individual coverage because age rating and other underwriting techniques result in excessive premiums. Those that are even offered coverage are often required to pay astronomical deductibles and co- pays, or are severely limited by pre-existing condition exclusions. In 1965, Medicare was specifically designed to provide coverage for those the market would not insure. Today we have the opportunity to expand on the original purpose of Medicare by providing access to people the market does not adequately cover. The Medicare Early Access Act would reduce the number of uninsured, provide better coverage for the underinsured, and improve the health status of this vulnerable population without harming Medicare or other insurance markets. That's why the Medicare Early Access Act makes so much sense. It would allow people in this cohort to buy into Medicare and enjoy the exact same benefits available to all other Medicare beneficiaries. Premiums for these new participants would be based on actuarial calculations of the cost of providing services to the population. There would be no effect on the Medicare trust fund because premiums will cover the entire cost of services provided. To ensure premiums are affordable, the bill provides a 75 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit. Thus, participants would pay a monthly premium equal to 25 percent of the cost of the program--an amount similar to what employed individuals pay for their health benefits. I am pleased to report that advocacy organizations representing consumers and seniors agree with us. The Medicare Early Access Act has been endorsed by The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO) which is a coalition of national nonprofit organizations concerned with the well-being of America's older population and committed to representing their interests in the policy-making arena. I would like to thank the 27 members of the LCAO who signed a letter in support of the Medicare Early Access Act. The full text of their letter appears at the end of my statement. In our quest to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, the Medicare Early Access Act, is a great start. This bill would provide affordable, comprehensive coverage to the most vulnerable uninsured who have few, if any, health insurance options in the current marketplace. The system necessary to implement this bill is already in place; all we have to do is agree the uninsured deserve viable coverage options. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this proposal. The Medicare Early Access Act Bill Summary

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Iran's deceptions about its nuclear weapons program are rightly condemned. The United States ought to use the tools at our disposal--both political and economic--to demand an end to their egregious policies. However, this resolution calls for the U.S. to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' As long as President Bush is in office, I can no longer trust that our foreign policy will be carried out using ``appropriate means.'' This President is no longer deserving of our trust. That's why I am forced to vote present on this resolution. I simply don't trust that President Bush won't misinterpret Congressional intent and attempt to use this resolution in ways Congress never intended. The pre-emptive quagmire in Iraq in which we now find ourselves was started under the pretense of deterring and preventing weapons of mass destruction. In fact, President Bush used past declarations of Congress meant merely to reprimand Iraq to justify full-blown war against that regime. Mr. Speaker, the Bush foreign policy of pre-emptive war, threats, and isolation has made the world a far more dangerous place. I want no part of this neoconservative agenda.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to vote no on this resolution. It is right to condemn the brutal and abhorrent abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But, this resolution is not strong enough. Without language authorizing a full-fledged Congressional investigation into this matter, we are failing our responsibility. Republicans refused to allow any language to be added to this resolution providing for an investigation into these crimes. They have limited our ability to bring those responsible to account for their actions. This is wrong, especially when our ideals have been undermined and our leadership again tarnished throughout the world. These acts of humiliation, torture and even murder are outrageous. They are a shameful affront to the Iraqi people and those throughout the Arab and Muslim World. As a Nation, we owe the victims of these acts and the Iraqi people a full apology and investigation into how these abhorrent abuses were allowed to occur. The torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are part of a larger systemic pattern of abuse with which this administration has been complicit. We know--as the Washington Post reported in December, 2002--that prisoners captured in Afghanistan by the U.S. were transferred to other nations to be tortured for information. We already are well acquainted with the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This latest expose of torture and abuse at the Iraqi prison is just one more example of heinous treatment at the hands of our Government. We trust in the honorable service of our troops. This does not reflect on the Americans bravely serving in Iraq. But, responsibility does lie with those at the very top of leadership and at the feet of this President. It is time Congress launch an investigation to end these patterns of abuse. If Congress does not act to right this wrong, I do not trust this administration will. We must condemn these acts of torture and abuse. Given that this resolution completely fails to provide Congress with the tools to initiate such investigations, I am forced to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the grand opening of the new Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, TVHC, Hayward Clinic. TVHC has been providing health care services to Hayward, California, residents since 1990. With a patient volume of more than 14,000 encounters annually, TVHC outgrew its previous clinic. To meet the growing demand for its community based health care services, TVHC embarked on a Hayward Clinic Relocation and Expansion Project, culminating in the grand opening of its new and expanded Hayward Clinic. As one of the leaders in delivering multicultural and linguistically appropriate health care services in southern Alameda County, Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, Inc., is part of a centralized, effective system of licensed medical providers, community health education, social work and nutrition services. TVHC has been providing comprehensive primary care and supportive services to the medically indigent, low-income, primarily Latino population in southern Alameda County since 1971. TVHC has repeatedly been recognized for its achievements in outreach and education that incorporates members of the clinic and surrounding community to govern, direct and participate in all aspects of the clinic operation to insure the quality and success of its service delivery and myriad of programs. They include a nationally recognized Women, Infants and Children, WIC, program out of three sites serving over 5,000 southern Alameda County clients and a comprehensive Family Support Service program through partnerships with the Every Child County/First Five Commission, the California Maternal and Child Health Branch Adolescent Family Life Program and the Alameda County Cal-Learn Program. TVHC clinic sites are certified California Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program Providers. Comprehensive sick and well child-care, adolescent care, adult care, and care of chronic and acute illness associated with aging are also provided as well as HIV/AIDS education and prevention and case management services. TVHC's award-winning community health programs, include the Nuestro Salud Nuestro Futuro chronic disease education program and Vide con Esperanza, a breast cancer support group for Spanish speaking Latinas and their families. A comprehensive staff of over 135 health professionals is expert at providing culturally competent services to people of all ages, races, lifestyles and backgrounds. As a federally qualified health center, TVHC, Inc., as the parent nonprofit corporate entity, operates three primary medical clinic sites, Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center in Union City, the Miranda Health Center in Hayward, and the Logan Health Center, located at the James Logan High School in Union City. The new Hayward Clinic will have a capacity to provide health care services for 28,000 patient encounters and will attract 3,000 new primary care users. Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center is a model for community-based health care. Its mission reflects its commitment: Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center is dedicated to promoting the health and well being of its community by providing accessible, high quality care. Our organizational and individual commitment is to ensure this human right through quality service, advocacy and community empowerment. I applaud Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center, Inc.'s commitment to excellence. I offer my heartfelt congratulations on the opening of its newest clinic in Hayward, California to be dedicated on May 20, 2004.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the fiscally irresponsible and inadequate H.R. 4181, ``Make Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief,'' and in support of the Democratic Substitute that helps more families and is fiscally responsible. The Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that is not paid for. In fact, their plan would add $105 billion over the next 10 years to the federal budget deficit. In contrast, the Democratic substitute provides marriage penalty tax relief to more Americans than the Republicans bill, but pays for it in a fair manner by limiting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The Democratic substitute provides more marriage penalty relief to 13 million families than the GOP bill by ensuring that tax relief from the marriage penalty is not taken away or reduced by the alternative minimum tax. The Republican bill denies full marriage penalty tax relief to 13 million families next year, including more than 25 percent of the middle-class families making $75,000 to $100,000, by failing to fix the inequities caused by the current alternative minimum tax system. The Democratic substitute also provides immediate marriage tax penalty relief to more Americans by increasing the value of the Earned Income Tax Credit for more lower-income working couples. The Republicans fail to give these families immediate relief in their bill. Again, the Republican bill demonstrates the misguided priorities of the Republican Party. Rather than ensuring that all hard working families get marriage tax penalty relief, the Republicans have decided to bankrupt this country to ensure that their fat cat rich elite donors continue to get away with paying absurdly low taxes. The ultimate losers are our children who will be left to pay the bill for the large budget deficits that President Bush and our Republican colleagues in Congress are planning to leave them. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute bill and vote against the insufficient and unaffordable Republican proposal.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 25th Anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Alameda, California. The League of Women Voters of Alameda became a fully approved Local League in September 1978. The founders of the League established the organization based on their belief that our Nation's democracy depends on an informed and participative citizenry. The Alameda League has made significant contributions to the City of Alameda, as well as Alameda County, the State of California, and the Nation by supporting sound government initiatives, providing voter education on ballot measures, conducting candidate's forums, and registering voters. The Alameda League continues to be an active participant in local and regional civic committees and has taken action in addressing city, state and national issues through careful study. The League reviews issues and takes positions that enhance the quality of the city of Alameda such as clean air and water, education, libraries, civic safety preparation, housing planning and development, and open space. Additionally, the Alameda League provides neutral observers to monitor the activities of the city council, school board and other boards and commissions within the City of Alameda. I congratulate the Alameda League of Women Voters for their commitment to public service. The organization, over the last 25 years, has provided valuable contributions to Alameda, California. I applaud their dedication to making sure their local, State, and Federal government is close to the public's pulse as they continue to reach out to the citizenry through education and civic participation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because, once again, the drug industry has lied to the American people in another desperate attempt to justify their outrageously high profits. While this fact should shock no one--indeed, it has become routine--we must not let their ridiculous propaganda go unchallenged. On Wednesday, April 7, speaking on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell told listeners that Pfizer spends only two percent of its revenue on advertising for prescription drugs. Even under the most optimistic projections, that's just fuzzy math. In 2003, total advertising expenses for Pfizer were a whopping $2.962 billion. That's 6.55 percent of the company's revenue, over three times the amount cited by Mr. McKinnell. Moreover, a report from Families USA, Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, which was based on a review of industry annual financial reports submitted to the SEC, found that Pfizer spent 35 percent of its revenue on marketing and promotion, and only 15 percent on research development (and 24 percent on profit). That same study found that Pfizer spent 8 percent more of its revenue on marketing than the average of all companies reviewed. Not only does Pfizer and the drug industry lie about the amount of money they spend on ads, but the ads also mislead consumers about the advertised drugs themselves. According to one advertising executive with significant experience with DTC ads, the purpose of advertising is not to educate consumer, but rather ``to identify the emotions we can tap into to get that customer to take the desired course of action.'' Moreover, in a survey of 1,872 people who viewed drug advertisements, 70 percent said they had learned little or nothing more about the conditions the drug is supposed to treat, and over half said they learned little or nothing more about the drug being advertised. Very few ads informed viewers of how successful the treatment is, what alternative treatments are available, how long a patient needs to take the drug, or attempts to correct common misconceptions about the disease the drug treats. Predictably, a strong majority of doctors--75 percent--said that the ads caused patients to think that advertised drugs work better than they do. These ads have contributed to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. In fact, a 2000 study showed that nearly half of the increased spending on pharmaceuticals was attributable to the fifty most advertised prescription drugs. Americans have been clamoring for lower prescription drug prices, yet all the drug companies have offered them is a string of excuses, empty promises, and outright lies. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve better.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am in support of the Guardsman and Reservists Financial Relief Act. The courageous Americans serving in harms way should not be forced to suffer for their services through unnecessary financial hardship. This legislation would allow members of the National Guard and Reserves deployed in extended duty in Iraq and elsewhere the opportunity to borrow against their 301(k) plans and retirement savings to make ends meet. This bill may give reservists more flexibility to meet financial pressures. But President Bush and Republicans in Congress can--and must--do more for our troops who are making sacrifices on our behalf. They deserve better pay and better health care and benefits for their families. Several thousands reservists who were on the verge of coming home from Iraq recently had their stay extended. By next month, the Pentagon expects reservists to make up 40 percent of the total force employed there. In fact, more than 325,000 Guardsmen and reservists have been activated since September 11, many taking a pay cut when called to active duty. With the bill before us today, reservists aren't getting additional pay to help support themselves and their families. They're just being allowed to borrow against their retirement without a penalty--as if having to pay back their lost retirement savings later because of lost wages isn't penalty enough. It is important to remember that most people who've joined the Guard and the Reserves never signed up expecting to be deployed on extended tours of duty. Yet, they have accepted that responsibility and served courageously in Iraq. But, let us not forget our reservists are still bearing the consequences. Many families of Guard and Reserve troops have had to cope with lost income since their civilian salaries are suspended while they are on active duty. The military pay for most reservists is often far lower than their civilian job forcing many families to work overtime, use their savings or even go on welfare. Rather than putting it on reservists to make up for this lost pay, Congress ought to pass the Equity for Reservists Pay Act, legislation I support to require federal agencies to pay employees the difference between their civilian and military wages while they are on active duty. Congress ought also extend military pay raises. We ought to extend the child tax credit to low-income families of those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although I support this legislation, Republicans have sadly missed the mark today. This just doesn't repay our troops for their service. But, I'm not surprised considering that President Bush wants to cut imminent danger pay and separation allowances, putting our troops further in the hole. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today. But this should not be the last step this Congress takes to help those brave Americans who continue to sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield. Travis, a 19-year-old resident of Fremont, California, served his country with honor in the United States Marines. Sadly, he was killed during a firefight in the Anbar Province of Western Iraq on Tuesday, April 6, 2004. The 2003 graduate of Washington High School has become a hero to all of us for his service with the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Pendleton in southern California. Travis entered ROTC while in junior high school and was totally focused on a career in the Marine Corps. Last year he completed 12 weeks of basic training at the Marine Corps recruit depot in San Diego. He left for the Middle East in February 2003, first heading to Kuwait and later Iraq. There has been a tremendous outpouring of love and respect for Travis from his classmates and friends at his high school alma mater, Washington High School, as well as the entire community of Fremont, California, who are mourning the loss of this proud young marine. We shall long remember Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield. He gave his life for peace and democracy and died, as a noble marine, serving our country. Our prayers and thoughts are with his family.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, earlier today during the vote on final passage of H.R. 3550, I was called off the floor to receive a phone call from my office. In my distraction, I thought I had voted in favor of H.R. 3550 when in actual fact I had not cast my vote. Had I not been distracted, I would have voted `Aye' on final passage of H.R. 3550.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ROTC Campus Access Act. This bill is wrong. It isn't about promoting military recruiting, its about punishing institutions that promote equal access to opportunity. The fact is this bill will prohibit colleges and universities from applying their same non-discrimination policies to the military that they apply to other employers. And, if they try to do so, it will bar them from receiving federal funding. Passage of this legislation is not only wrong, it's unnecessary. Current law already provides the federal government the ability to deny federal funding to colleges and universities that refuse to allow military recruiters or ROTC programs access to their campuses. This bill takes that law a step further by requiring that such access be equal to the access provided to other potential employers seeking to recruit new employees on college campuses. The problem with taking this extra step is that it would require many colleges and universities to explicitly ignore their own non- discrimination policies or lose their federal funding. Many colleges and universities require employers to sign a non- discrimination pledge before they recruit on campus. That means employers cannot discriminate against prospective employees on many bases--including sexual orientation. Yet, our Military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy is straight-forward discrimination and in direct conflict with college policies of this nature. If this bill becomes law, and a college or university attempted to downplay the prominence of the ROTC recruiting effort by placing them in a not-so- central location for their recruiting efforts, they could lose all federal funding. This is draconian, extreme, and wrong. We ought to be voting today to overturn the military's don't ask don't tell policy and instituting a policy that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this Congress is unwilling to take the right step. They're putting the wrong foot forward on this one. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up to oppose discrimination and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, as the senior Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, I am honored to be here today to continue the tradition begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins. I came here last year and accused President Bush of being a liar. A year later, I feel no reason to apologize or change my opinion. Events have proved that point. It has been proven that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In the economic report that the President signed, he tried to spin a recovery on jobs but the fact is---- Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I will take that under consideration. This is the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs during his Presidency. In the same report, the President tried to reinvent history of our current recession and blame it on the Clinton administration; but the National Bureau of Economic Research, the only body that can date a recession, continues to say it began March 2001, under the watch of George W. Bush. More recently, there was subterfuge to hide an analysis done by the administration experts on the cost of their Medicare prescription drug bill, which narrowly passed the House, with assurance that it would cost no more than $400 billion. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and others assured us that, in fact, it would cost perhaps less than $400 billion, when the administration knew that the costs would be higher than their own analysis says, $535 billion. They could not have passed the bill if their own Members had known about this price tag. So what did they do? The administration suppressed the information and told the actuary who had done the work if he released that data he would be fired so fast his head would spin. This is not an administration that can be trusted. They lie, they bury facts, they threaten people to make sure that their side of the story is presented, and it is reason enough alone to vote ``no'' on this budget presented to us today. The Republicans are playing games with numbers. The Americans deserve to have an honest budget, and I do not think that the Republican budget lives up to that standard. It has got an eternity time frame for Social Security and Medicare; but if they used the same time frame for their own budget, we would see deficits beyond our discovery of life on Mars. Regardless of how we measure it, this budget is one more step to privatize Social Security and Medicare. For jobs and unemployment, we have got 12.6 million people under- or unemployed and there are no unemployment insurance benefits to fulfill those that expired at the end of last year. In health care, 1.6 million more Americans, mostly children and pregnant women, will lose their access to health care because of the $13 billion cut from Medicaid and children's health program; 500,000 children will be dropped from their child care by 2009; and in education $9.4 billion less for the No Child Left Behind Act than was promised by the Republican administration. The Republican budget shortcomings shortchange college students by freezing the Pell grant awards, and it reduces other student aid. Any way we look at it, this budget shortchanges American families. It causes more people to join the ranks of those without health insurance. It endangers the education of our children, and it fails to honestly address the costs of the President's war with Iraq. Like my friend, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, points out, and I agree, this is a faith-based budget. It is a memo to God. It is our Nation, the Republicans in it, telling God what our highest priorities are, and in this Republican budget, we are telling God that making the rich richer is much more important than educating our children, providing quality health care for all our citizens and helping those between jobs. It is a sad commentary when we have to rely on distorted facts, made- up figures, I am not allowed to suggest prevarication; but when we do not have the numbers and make them up, the country should not have to rely on falsehoods. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking out of order here, and I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be yielded 10 minutes of the Joint Economic Committee time for purposes of control.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to submit to the Congressional Record an article that appears in the current issue of VIA Magazine, celebrating the culinary contributions of several Afghan American restaurateurs in my city of Fremont, California. These establishments deserve praise, not only for satisfying many appetites with delectable food, but for enriching our community with their enterprise and important cultural gifts that make Fremont a better place to live. I am honored to represent the largest Afghan American community in the nation and gladly invite my colleagues to come to California to enjoy, as the author of this article exclaims, ``some of the best Afghan food and goods this side of Kabul.'' I couldn't agree more myself. [From VIA Magazine, Mar.-Apr. 2004] Little Afghanistan: Discover the Flavors of Kabul in the Bay Area (By April Thompson) Handmade Afghan ravioli and rugs in sleepy, suburban Fremont? The Northern California city is home to the nation's largest Afghan American community and some of the best Afghan food and goods this side of Kabul. Afghanistan's cuisine has been influenced by Russia, India, China, and Persia, and its dishes star the rich, sweet, and tart tastes of cardamom, cilantro, rose water, and homemade yogurt. The storefronts on Fremont Boulevard may look plain, but inside their shelves are stocked with pomegranate juice, sugared chickpeas, apple tobacco, and other goods imported from Bombay, Cairo, and numerous points between. At the Pamir Food Mart, you can buy long loaves of Afghan naan warm from the oven. Bring a hearty appetite and sense of adventure to Salang Pass, one of four Afghan restaurants on the boulevard. Don't miss gabili pilau, Afghanistan's national dish of baked brown rice with lamb and raisins; aushak, ravioli stuffed with leeks and spices; or the burani kadu, soft pumpkin sauteed with garlic and cardamom. Across the street, carnivores should check out the De Afghanan Kabob House, where every plate features skewered meat.