Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor Nancy Davis Stark on her induction this past January to the State of California Superior Court for Contra Costa County. Judge Davis Stark is a highly competent and capable addition to the bench having worked tirelessly for the past 2 decades as an accomplished Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County. In this position, Judge Davis Stark served as Chief of the Sexually Violent Predator Unit, was on the felony trial staff, and held several supervisory positions and assignments. Judge Davis Stark has been a member of the California Bar since 1982, the same year she earned her Juris Doctor from the University of California's Hastings College of Law. She received her bachelor-of-arts degree from California State University at Hayward. The daughter of Eugene and Amelia Davis, Judge Davis Stark grew up in the Bay Area having spent her childhood in Oakland and Castro Valley. For the past 14 years, she has been a resident of Alamo where she is a committed volunteer in her community, most notably as the creator and one-time manager of a children's string ensemble known as the Alamo Ensemble Players. Perhaps most important to me, Judge Davis Stark--Nancy as I call her--is the mother of two beautiful daughters--my granddaughters-- Gretchen and Claire and devoted wife of 18 years to my son Jeff. I am grateful to have Nancy as my daughter-in-law. I am even more honored that her years of hard work and service to the public have earned her a rightful place on the Superior Court. Mr. Speaker, I know Nancy's sound intellect, strong sense of fairness, and demonstrated commitment to the law and justice will be a welcome addition to the bench. I wish her well in this pursuit.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. We ought to be honoring those who gave their lives, their limbs and sacrificed their futures for our country. So far, 565 service members have lost their lives, more than 3,000 have been wounded--many losing limbs--and now we are seeing American civilians becoming targets. Instead, we are here today making hollow political pronouncements that the war was right and just and that somehow our Nation and our world are more secure. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be true. Americans are less safe and the world is more dangerous--precisely because of the Bush policy in Iraq. On this anniversary of the war we ought to include in this resolution the names of the heroes who gave their lives. We ought to be honoring and commending these brave Americans for what they have given and sacrificed along with the troops who continue to serve valiantly. But, the Bush administration doesn't want to talk about--or expose--the 565 Americans who've been killed and the 3,254 wounded. The omission of this remembrance demonstrates that President Bush and his Administration are good at taking credit, but terrible at accepting responsibility. We've seen in the past few weeks the President cloaking himself in September 11th. He's put images of ground zero in his campaign ads. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't go so far as to give his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination at that very site as the entire Republican Party politicizes September 11th at their upcoming convention. Yet, President Bush won't attend any funerals or memorial services for soldiers killed in action in Iraq. In fact, he's prohibited access to Dover Air Force Base to the media altogether. The Department of Defense has broken a long tradition by prohibiting arrival ceremonies because the images of these casualties are an embarrassment to President Bush. The President knows that American troops were sent to Iraq ill prepared and without enough equipment to keep them safe. Soldiers face daily threats there. They don't have sufficient body armor or armored vehicles as rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs take lives and limbs. The President knows the troops wouldn't be there in the first place if he hadn't misled the American people. We now know--far too late-- that the intelligence community never told the President or senior administration officials that Iraq posed an imminent threat or that it had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, President Bush continually referred to Iraq as an ``urgent,'' ``mortal'' and ``immediate'' threat in making his case for war. The President knows his mind was already made up to go to war. Today, he should know the world is not a safer place as a result, especially for our troops. I will not support a resolution that falsely makes any such claim. While senior defense officials have told Congress that we will run out of money and need another $19 billion in September, the President's Budget does not include a single penny of this spending. He simply refuses to give the American public the plain facts. America and our security would benefit from a new approach to foreign policy. Imagine a President who embraces global cooperation, respects international law and institutions and promotes political and economic freedom and human rights around the globe. Imagine America exercising responsible leadership that reflects our priorities and capable of partnerships that make our world safer. This would be a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives in Iraq. We should work for what these servicemen and women believed they could achieve: a more secure future for America and stronger, more peaceful world. That's the resolution I wish we were here considering today instead of this overblown rhetoric attempting to justify a failed Presidential agenda.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my California colleague Henry Waxman and 24 of our Democratic California colleagues to introduce important legislation to protect California's Medicare beneficiaries from being forced into HMOs. The Republican Medicare prescription drug law has many downfalls. The legislation we are introducing today corrects only one of them, but it is an especially important fix for seniors and people with disabilities who live in California. As part of the prescription drug law, Republicans insisted on including a demonstration project beginning in 2010 that would require the traditional fee-for-service program to compete against private HMOs and other managed care plans for payment. This so-called ``premium support'' or ``comparative cost adjustment'' demonstration will cause Medicare beneficiaries who choose to remain in traditional fee-for- service Medicare to pay more and more for that choice. This cost differential will economically force people into HMOs--even if those plans do not meet their health care needs. Its part of the overall goal of the bill to dismantle Medicare as we know it. Because we don't want California's seniors to be forced into health plans against their will, we've authored legislation to exempt California from eligibility for this wrong-headed demonstration program. Senator Boxer has introduced companion legislation in the Senate (S. 2116). Upon introduction, she said the following: In California, 12 of its metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) now qualify for the demonstration project. If the two largest MSAs are chosen for this demonstration project, 1.4 million Californians will be faced with a Hobson's choice. They will be required to join an HMO or pay higher premiums. That brings us to the real question: Why is this necessary? Is it because seniors can't choose HMOs under the current system? No. Seniors can choose to join an HMO right now if they wish. I'll tell you why: It is a backdoor attempt to achieve Newt Gingrich's vision for a Medicare that will `wither on the vine.' '' We agree with Senator Boxer. Seniors and people with disabilities should have the right to join a managed care plan in Medicare if they feel that plan will best meet their health care needs. That right exists in Medicare today and is preserved in the Republican-passed prescription drug legislation. However, no senior should be FORCED to join an HMO because it is the only way that they can obtain affordable health care. That's why we've joined together to introduce this bill to exempt California from eligibility for the demonstration program--a demonstration that would force seniors into a Hobson's choice that will limit their access to the health care they need and result in the real goal of the Republican-passed Medicare legislation: the dismantling of the Medicare program.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. This legislation is unnecessary. Lawsuits brought against fast food companies for allegedly causing obesity have been routinely thrown out. The fact is the law has worked in repelling bogus legal claims. Yet, I suppose just like every other self-serving business lobby in Washington, the fast food industry wants the Republicans to protect them from being responsible. It's as if they're asking the GOP to ``super size it'' with a massively overreaching bill that grants fast food companies broad and unprecedented liability protection even in instances where they are clearly negligent. Remember now that this legislation is an unnecessary response to a completely imagined problem. Consider then the impact it will have on ordinary Americans if they are injured by reckless behavior. Well, to start with, this bill says that if a fast food chain is reckless and causes injury in a manner that is not already prohibited under state or federal law, they can't be held accountable. Second, if a fast food restaurant does break a state or federal law but says they didn't mean to do it, they get off just as easy. This is a question of responsibility. I don't think most Americans believe anyone ought to get this kind of special treatment, especially when the result might well be more reckless and dangerous behavior. Finally, let me just say that I find it interesting we would bring up the issue of obesity without a meaningful discussion of ways in which we can promote better health. There is no discussion in this chamber today about making sure children are learning about and getting better nutrition. There is not a word mentioned about better food labeling so that Americans are better informed about the impact their choice of diet has on their health and longevity. We aren't talking about making sure the fast food industry fully discloses the health risks of high fat food that they have continually marketed and made easily accessible in every corner of this country. I ask my colleagues to vote down this unneeded and potentially damaging legislation--it's a matter for the courts, not Congress. We ought to focus on bringing Americans to better health, rather than the healthy profits of the fast food industry.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the numerous achievements of the Peace Corps during National Peace Corps Week from March 1-7, 2004. I commend the Peace Corps for its 43 years of attentive humanitarian service and contributions around the world. Since its inception in 1961, the Peace Corps has served to promote a mission of world peace throughout the 137 countries where its volunteers have diligently served. The work of these volunteers has become more vital today than ever before, with many Americans interested in humanitarian service, and a multitude of host countries eagerly awaiting their arrival. Currently, more than 75,000 volunteers are serving in 71 countries around the world. This number includes five volunteers from California's 13th District: Julie Chang (Mali), Sarah Knueven Brett (Haiti), Rosalind Lwin (Kenya), Brian Stanke (Romania), and Judy Wong (Ukraine). These volunteers share their time and talents as teachers, advisers, agriculture and youth workers, and health educators in the countries where they serve. During National Peace Corps Week, I am proud to honor the American men and women who are selflessly eager to serve our Nation by fulfilling the mission of the Peace Corps. The noble actions of these volunteers have empowered people in developing countries through their grassroots development efforts. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Peace Corps on its 43rd anniversary for its continuing humanitarian efforts throughout the world.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 1997, the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' I am deeply disappointed that Republicans are using this controversial bill as a vehicle for their blatant attacks on a woman's right to choose. The Republican majority party could enact a number of serious and meaningful laws that prevent and punish violence against women. However, instead of bringing common-sense measures up for debate, anti- choice lawmakers bring the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to the floor. It's perfectly clear why they're raising it. The Bush Administration-- along with Republicans in Congress--are trading the wishes of their conservative base for votes in the upcoming elections. This bill creates a separate Federal offense if, during commission of certain crimes, a person causes death or injury to what the sponsors of this bill call ``a member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of development.'' If this bill passes, it will for the first time in Federal law, recognize a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus as a ``person'' that can be an independent victim of a crime. This bill does this even though the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's be clear, this bill will not help address the serious issue of violence against women, which affects nearly one in every three women during their adulthood. If its intent were truly this, I would fully support it. In fact, domestic violence organizations, like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence--that do not take positions on abortion--oppose this legislation. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act isn't the right solution. That's why I oppose it and will instead vote for the substitute being offered by my colleague Representative Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment, the Motherhood Protection Act, will help to prevent crimes against pregnant women, rather than embroil the issue surrounding the abortion debate. It would create a second Federal offense for harming a pregnant woman and would impose the same penalties for harm to, or termination of, a pregnancy as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But, importantly, the Motherhood Protection Act recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victims of a crime rather than the fetus. This guarantees appropriate penalties in the law without getting us into a volatile, unnecessary debate over abortion. Further exploiting the issues of violence against women, anti-choice advocates have resorted to using the unfortunate case of Laci Peterson's murder to push the legislation--even though passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been one of their top legislative priorities since 1999, long before the Peterson tragedy. Any doubts about the sponsors' true motives were erased when Senator Orrin Hatch told a reporter: ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does. But that's irrelevant.'' The Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly fails to address the very real need for strong Federal legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women. Congress should be protecting pregnant women from violent crime without having to resort to controversial bills like the one before us. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this deceptive bill, which does nothing to thwart acts of violence, and vote ``yes'' on the substitute being offered today, a real remedy for assaults made against pregnant women.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. For far too long, the pharmaceutical industry has jeopardized patient safety and inflated prescription drug prices by using tax-deductible dollars to underwrite their marketing efforts. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act would root out this unethical and potentially fraudulent behavior by denying tax deductions to pharmaceutical companies for the gifts they lavish on physicians. Recently, Congress passed a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that falls far short of giving seniors the relief they need from the high prices of prescription drugs. In fact, the average senior will still pay $1660 out of pocket per year under the new drug benefit, and a total of $2080 out of pocket when premiums are included. Unfortunately, the new drug bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices. In fact, it specifically prevents the government from using the bargaining power of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. At the same time, it continues to prohibit seniors from shopping for a better price on the global market, despite broad bipartisan support for allowing them to do so. Relief is all the more urgent because prescription drug prices are rising for seniors, who now pay an average of $2,322 for their drugs. Between 1998 and 2003, of the 50 drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors, nearly three-quarters of them increased in price by at least one and one-half times the rate of inflation, and more than half increased by at least three times the rate of inflation. We must do all that we can to lower the price of prescription drugs and to spend our healthcare dollars wisely. Yet, drug companies are spending billions of dollars on promotions to entice doctors to prescribe their products, and these dollars are tax deductible. An April 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that pharmaceutical companies spent $13 billion in 2001 on incentives for doctors, or more than $15,000 per doctor. Sixty-one percent of physicians surveyed said they had received gifts from the industry. Drug companies often give out free meals, tickets to the theater, concerts, or sporting events, gifts such as watches and jewelry, and pay for physicians' travel to symposiums or conferences. These gifts are often attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to induce doctors to prescribe their products even when it is not in the patient's best interest. For example, recently disclosed court documents have revealed that Warner-Lambert encouraged hundreds of doctors to prescribe Neurontin for unapproved uses by inviting them to dinners, weekend trips to resorts, and free tickets to the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Just a few months ago, the U.S. Attorney's office filed court papers accusing the company of implementing a ``marketing scheme that is rife with false statements and fraudulent conduct.'' The U.S. Attorney concluded that the public interest can only be served when drug promotion is ``free of the insidious effects of kickbacks and related financial conflicts of interest,'' which artificially inflate sales and prices. These gift-giving campaigns contribute to preference and rapid prescribing of new drugs, and decreased prescribing of generics. In other words, tax-deductible dollars contribute to the rising prices of prescription drugs. These campaigns and inflated prices are particularly outrageous, given the level of profit the drug companies make at the expense of patients. The pharmaceutical industry is consistently the most profitable industry in America, with profit margins in 2001 more than five times the median for fortune 500 companies. Spending on prescription drugs has increased by 20% each year between 1997 and 2001. Between January 1997 and January 2002, the average price of the most commonly used prescription drugs for seniors rose by 27.6%, more than twice the rate of inflation. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) pretended to discourage these improper marketing ploys by issuing conflict-of interest guidelines in April 2002. After announcing the guidelines with fanfare, they then paid the American Medical Association to ``educate'' their members on these guidelines-that is, they gave doctors financial incentives to promote ethical guidelines that called for an end to financial incentives! It is obvious that PhRMA is not serious about ending the practice of giving financial incentives to doctors. This bill would create an incentive for drug companies to adhere to their own code of conduct. Not only are these incentives unethical, but they could even be illegal. The HHS Inspector General issued final guidance to pharmaceutical manufacturers saying that many of these gifts to doctors could be considered illegal kickbacks. By allowing tax deductions for these gifts, current tax law actually encourages this potentially illegal practice. This bill seeks to redress this perverse incentive. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act would help ensure that pharmaceutical companies' behavior matched their rhetoric. This bill eliminates the tax-deduction that pharmaceutical companies currently receive for the gifts they give to physicians. Clever marketing ploys that influence physician prescribing habits do little to actually save lives, but do much to increase drug prices and corporate profits. By removing incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lavish gifts of dubious public value on physicians, I hope that pharmaceutical companies will either redirect those funds toward research and development of lifesaving drugs or reduce the prices of prescription drugs for seniors and all Americans. These price reductions will provide much needed relief to America's seniors, who face an ever-increasing burden when paying for their prescriptions, and will stretch scarce Medicare drug benefit dollars further. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in support of the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. Prohibiting industry gifts to physicians is a nonpartisan issue that should receive bipartisan support. In fact, the Republican appointed Health and Human Services Inspector General issued guidance restricting the practice, and, next door in Maryland, a Republican state representative has introduced a bill to prohibit these gifts. It is time to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund the industry's marketing campaign to doctors, which puts profits above patients.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Social Security Program Protection Act. This legislation makes a strong Social Security program even stronger for the millions of Americans who rely on its benefits for stability through old age, disability or loss of a loved one. And this bill will help to protect the promise of economic security for future generations--a promise we must keep. I strongly support the protections this legislation provides for some of the most vulnerable recipients of Social Security. Today, many beneficiaries are unable to manage their own benefits so a representative payee is often appointed to do so on their behalf. While this is undoubtedly necessary, too many seniors and people with disabilities have fallen victim to fraud and abuse. This bill makes dramatic improvements to the representative payee system to help protect beneficiaries. It does so by initiating strict oversight of representative payees and expanding the ability of the Social Security Administration to repay benefits that have been misused or stolen. For many, this puts real financial security back in Social Security. Despite the strengths of this bill, I am disappointed, however, that Republicans refused to accept an amendment I offered to this bill in the Ways and Means Committee to reduce the Government Pension Offset penalty. This penalty unfairly reduces or even eliminates Social Security benefits for millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers and others who serve the public. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Social Security Program Protection Act to extend the promise of retirement security for every American, today and tomorrow.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to Council Member Doris Rodriquez, who is retiring from the Hayward City Council at the end of her term on April 6, 2004. Ms. Rodriquez will leave a legacy of 27 years of dedicated service to the city of Hayward, California. Her initial service was on the City of Hayward Citizens Advisory Commission from 1977 to 1984, followed by an appointment to the city's Planning Commission, where she served a seven-year stint. Rodriquez was first appointed to the City Council in 1991 and was elected in 1992 and has served consecutive four-year terms. The city of Hayward has benefited from Rodriquez's tireless contributions as a city council liaison on the Airport Committee, Commercial Center Improvement Committee, Citizens Advisory Commission, Downtown Revitalization Committee, Public Agencies Committee and the Route 92/880 Interchange Citizens Advisory Committee. Serving as the council's liaison, Rodriquez has been the city's vital link to the community. She has garnered wide-ranging respect with all segments of the community. Her intellect, her sound judgment, her calming personality, her sincere interest in Hayward issues and its citizens, and her ability to work with myriad organizations have benefited Hayward immeasurably. Rodriguez is an integral part of Hayward's fabric. She is a member of numerous organizations. Her name is not merely listed on the membership rosters but she is intricately involved in the heart of the organizations to make a positive contribution to Hayward. These organizations, who continue to benefit from Rodriquez's experience and commitment, include Friends of the Hayward Library, Hayward Area Planning Association, Hispanic Elected Local Officials, Southgate Home Owners Association, League of Women Voters, and Sun Gallery. On March 19, 2004, the City of Hayward will host a farewell dinner to thank Council Member Doris Rodriguez for her tireless efforts on behalf of Hayward and its citizens. I join the fine citizens of the city to thank Doris for a job well done.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Long Term Care Hospital Moratorium Act. This bill places a moratorium on the growth of costly Medicare Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH) beds until enough information is available to determine whether continued growth is required to meet the needs of our seniors and people with disabilities. The number of these facilities has increased substantially from 109 to 300 in the past decade and Medicare expenditures directed to these facilities have grown from $398 million in 1993 to an anticipated $2.3 billion in 2005. The recent 275% increase in facilities and over 500% increase in Medicare expenditures are dramatic. It is time for Congress to question whether this rapid growth reflects a true increase in clinical need or just a means to game robust profits from Medicare. LTCHs are one of four types of post-acute settings that are reimbursed under Medicare. Patients in these facilities have medically complex conditions that include ventilator dependency, multiple medical system failures, complicated infectious conditions, wound care and post-surgical recuperation. These patients generally have stays in these facilities of 25 days or more. Currently, only 1 percent of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from acute hospitals are transferred to LTCHs. These facilities are the most expensive on average of all the post-acute alternatives with a base rate cost per patient episode being $35,700. The growth in the long term care hospital sector is being fueled by large for-profit companies that are reporting significant revenue increases and robust profit margins. Their margins are significantly higher than those for acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. Wall Street recognition of the industry's positive financial outlook is likely related to the 300 percent increase that has been posted this year in the stocks of these publicly-traded companies. Recent data from the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) suggests that there may also be substantial overlap between the types of patients being treated in LTCHs and skilled nursing facilities; despite LTCHs costing 4-5 times more. The potential for LTCHs to substitute for less costly skilled nursing facilities is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no clinical patient admission criteria under Medicare for LTCHs. A review of the LTCH Medicare provider network raises a number important public policy questions. These questions include: Is there evidence of clinical need to support the rapid growth in LTCH facilities? Is the current Medicare payment system inappropriate or is the reimbursement amount excessive for LTCH services? Are LTCHs and skilled nursing facilities clinical substitutes? If so, are there clinical criteria that can be developed to determine which patients require LTCHs vs. skilled nursing facilities? This legislation simply places a moratorium on the future growth of this provider network category until these questions are answered. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may terminate this moratorium upon obtaining adequate information to address these questions and implementing any required changes to the Medicare payment system for these services. The Secretary is also required to submit a report to Congress at least one month prior to terminating the moratorium specifying the rationale and evidence supporting the termination. It is appropriate for Congress, who is responsible for providing fiscal oversight of Medicare, to enact this legislation. Both MedPAC and the Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General are already investigating aspects of these issues. The LTCH and skilled nursing home industries, patient advocacy groups and other relevant sources can offer additional data. Using the data obtained during this moratorium, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Congress can make an informed decision on what interventions are necessary within the LTCH industry to both ensure beneficiaries are receiving the treatment they require and that Medicare funds are being prudently spent.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Eapen, M.D, a Frerfront, California pediatrician, who is the recipient of the first Physician Recognition Award from the Medical Board of California. The California Medical Board, which licenses physicians throughout the State, created a Physician Recognition Task Force last year to begin an annual program to recognize physicians for outstanding service. On January 30, 2004, Dr. Eapen received the award in recognition of his career devoted to improving public health for the underserved worldwide, as well as for his current work as a pediatrician for Alameda County Health Services, where he reaches out to poor children in East Bay communities and children being held at Juvenile Hall in San Leandro, California. He has been the commissioner of public health in Alameda County for more than four years. A native of India, Dr. Eapen graduated from the Tivandrum Medical College at Kerala University and traveled to Africa, where he worked as the director of the pediatric unit in Agha Kahn Hospital in Tanzania. He also worked and taught in Nigeria. While he was working in a Nigerian hospital, Dr. Eapen saw hundreds of children die from diseases because of malnourishment. Since then, he has dedicated his career to pediatric services for the underprivileged. He has also served as a United Nations' health adviser in the Philippines. Dr. Eapen earned a master's degree in public health in 1984 from the University of California, Berkeley. He completed a second residency in 1992 from Stanford University, which allowed him to practice in the United States. He has been honored by Stanford Medical School as one of the 40 outstanding Stanford Medical alumni from among 7000 graduates of the last sixty years. Dr. Eapen has embraced Public Health Services in an explicit attempt to foster more appropriate and effective policies and practices to benefit poor, underserved patients. He devotes his time and energy to working in the county health system to improve public health. After receiving his award, Dr. Eapen told the Medical Board of California that epidemics have no borders, and he also spoke against the potential closure of clinics in Alameda County, California, because of costs. Dr. Eapen epitomizes the essence of the award he received from the Medical Board. He is indeed dedicated to improving public health care and is working daily to usher in real changes in the lives of people. To quote Dr. Eapen: ``There's so much to be done.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the American Dental Association for organizing the 2nd Annual Give Kids A Smile National Children's Dental Access Day. Today, dentists from across the country will be generously volunteering their time to provide free screening and dental care services to children in need. In its inaugural year last year, dentists participating in Give Kids A Smile National Children's Dental Access Day provided free care to an estimated 1 million disadvantaged children nationwide. Beyond providing free dental services and dental health education, this annual effort is aimed at raising awareness about the large number of children that go without dental care each year and the impact this can have on their overall health and wellness. Give Kids A Smile Day provides a tremendous opportunity for parents who lack adequate health or dental coverage to get needed dental care for their kids. There is a clear need for this. According to a recent report on health care quality, only 38 percent of children in poor health and less than half of all children between the ages of 2 and 17 have seen a dentist in the past year. Access to good health care is synonymous with access to good dental care and too many children and families are being left behind. Given the impact untreated dental disease can have on a child's health, school performance and overall quality of life, there is no question that we need to improve awareness about and access to dental care. I applaud the American Dental Association for spearheading this effort. I commend the California Dental Association for their participation and the many dentists in my district from the Southern Alameda County Dental Society and the Alameda County Dental Society for performing this public service. Their contributions now and in the future will go a long way in improving the health of many needy children.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the ``Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003'' and in support of the Democratic alternative. I fully support the Community Services Block Grant. It has helped lift many Americans out of poverty. It has been instrumental in creating programs that provide many Americans with services and skills to get good jobs and fully participate in their community. And ``community'' is an important value underscored in this initiative. The Community Services Block Grant is supposed to build stronger communities, not create divided ones where discrimination is tolerated and encouraged. Yet, the House Republican bill would do just that. It includes a provision that makes it legal for religious organizations that receive funds under the Community Services Block Grant to discriminate against who they hire or provide services to based on one's religious beliefs. This horrible provision will lead to religious organizations denying essential services to many low income Americans based on their religion and ultimately depriving them of the opportunity to use these community services to climb out of poverty. I will not vote for legislation that reinstitutes government- sponsored discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote instead for the Democratic alternative. It funds all the programs Republicans fund in their bill. But, it does so without opening the door to discrimination and intolerance that is a barrier to self-sufficiency and stronger communities across our Nation. Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant. It is an extremely important program for more than 1,000 communities nationwide and millions of families. In Wisconsin, there are currently 19 eligible organizations and 11 tribes that receive CSBG funds and last year the State received nearly $8 million in funding. I am pleased that in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District that I represent there are five Community Action Agencies serving our community. They include West Central Wisconsin Community Action Agency, Western Dairy-land, Cooleecap, Central Wisconsin Community Action Council and Southwest CAP. I commend these agencies for all the work they do to fight poverty and assist some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Over the past several years the Nation's poverty rate has risen so that now more than 34 million people live in poverty with an all-time high since statistics were first kept in 1979. Recent unemployment figures are equally troubling. Since 2001, approximately 2.3 million workers have lost their jobs. Given the current economic situation in this country right now, the reauthorization of a program whose central purpose is to minimize the effects of poverty and to maximize self- sufficiency for millions of people is critically important. Yet, H.R. 3030 before us today fails to correct provisions in current law that permit religious organizations receiving funds under this Act to discriminate in employment based on religion. While these provisions have existed in current law for 5 years, I cannot condone the continuation of discriminatory policies in any context. During committee consideration of H.R. 3030, an amendment was offered to remove the discriminatory language. This amendment failed, thus retaining this language, which is why I opposed the legislation in committee and why I oppose it again today. While I strongly support the right of religious institutions to preserve the integrity of their own religious character when it comes to their activities, I oppose the Federal Government providing Federal funds for secular purposes to any organization that could then use these funds in a discriminatory fashion on religious grounds. I do support the Democratic substitute offered by my good friend, Representative George Miller, ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee. The substitute restores basic civil rights for workers while ensuring the on-going participation of faith-based groups in CSBG programs. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to reiterate my support for the Community Services Block Grant and express my deep disappointment in having to oppose this bill for the mere fact that the congressional leadership insisted on retaining such discriminating language.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Girls Inc. of Alameda County's Girls Research Project. The research project is one of the most comprehensive and innovative health and wellness studies by and about teenage girls in Alameda County. Girls, Inc. launched this project as an outgrowth of its strategic plan which revealed that it was extremely difficult to find or gain access to disaggregated data about teenage girls on a range of critical factors relating to their physical and mental health, access to medical care, educational experiences, perceptions of school and community, and support networks, among others. The core intent of the Project has been to gather robust qualitative and quantitative data about the health and wellness of teenage girls to enhance youth programs and inform policy agendas while at the same time teaching girls themselves about the power of data and guiding them to become leaders and advocates for positive health outcomes in girls' lives. The project is unprecedented in Alameda County and has surpassed all original expectations. Successful written surveys were conducted in 11 public and alternative high schools in Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro yielding responses from more than 1,900 girls in the 9th through the 12th grade, representing more than 21 % of the entire female high school population in the target school district. A dedicated group of 20 young women were trained to conduct almost 100 one-on-one interviews of their peers. They also helped analyze and interpret both the qualitative and quantitative data collected through the research efforts. The resulting analysis presents a mixed portrait of girls in Northern Alameda County. A portrait, which on the one hand, demonstrates the resilience and enthusiasm of teen girls, while on the other hand, reveals continued areas of concern relating to girls' physical and mental health; their engagement in risk behaviors; their negative attitudes towards some academic areas, as well as their perceptions and experiences of safety and violence in their schools and communities. I applaud Girls Inc. of Alameda County for initiating and completing the Girls Research Project. I am confident the research findings will provide valuable guidance for families, educators, health care professionals, policymakers, and the myriad organizations focused on the health and well-being of teenage girls.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor World War lI veteran, retired Sgt. Bob Lewis. Lewis was an 18-year-old Army recruit in Camp Fannin, Texas, when his captain dropped a grenade during a demonstration. Lewis rolled onto it with his helmet, and then tossed it into a nearby ditch where it exploded into bits of shrapnel. Had the grenade gone off where it was dropped, he says, it likely would have injured or killed many of the 29 infantrymen watching the demonstration. It was 1945, shortly after U.S. troops defeated Germany in World War II, but after Japan surrendered and, at the time, Lewis thought nothing of his heroic act. The long-since-retired technical sergeant, who went on to become a well-known Fremont educator, has not received any recognition or medals for his heroic efforts to save the members of his infantry, while still a young recruit. Because Lewis' act took place nearly 60 years ago, securing the necessary documentation would require months of research. An eyewitness would be almost impossible to locate as most of Lewis' fellow soldiers and superior officers have died. Lewis may be eligible for the Soldier's Medal, which is awarded for an act of heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. For the time being, Lewis who once guarded 1,400 German prisoners in Bazencourt, France, says he is content with the small green patch, emblazoned with a gold wreath, on his Army jacket. It's a meritorious service unit citation, awarded to his outfit for postwar service. Lewis not only distinguished himself during his military career but also in his profession as an educator. He worked as principal of Chadbourne, Patterson and Niles elementary schools and assistant superintendent of the Fremont school district. I join retired Sgt. Bob Lewis' family, friends and admirers in applauding him for his meritorious military service and contributions to our country and to his community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gwen Estes, a recent recipient of the prestigious Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award. The international award, sponsored by a number of peace groups and Morehouse College in Atlanta, was presented to Ms. Estes for her commitment to promoting peace, unity and non-violence. Gwen Estes is a former parole officer. The job never seemed quite right to Ms. Estes as she has always been about building for the future. Years of watching guards lead shackled inmates into the great abyss of the prison system ran counter to values passed along by Ms. Estes' mother, who spent years teaching school. Seeking a career change, Gwen Estes followed in the family footsteps and choose teaching. However, she didn't pursue a mainstream teaching job. She opted for Hayward Community School, a last chance outpost for at-risk students who have been expelled for offenses ranging from fighting to selling drugs. Working tirelessly with students who needed more help than their regular teachers could give, Ms. Estes is saving the lives of troubled teens starving for positive attention, respect and caring. One need only look into the faces transfixed before her in her portable classroom to better understand why she received the prestigious peace award. Her classroom radiates with trust and compassion and Estes shares a connection with students who have felt alienated and alone in other settings. Now unlike her years as a parole officer, when her reports could lead to long sentences foreshadowing destroyed lives, Gwen Estes is giving out hope in exceptionally large doses at Hayward Community School. Ms. Estes is also President of the New Haven Board of Education, another factor that has contributed to success with her students. The confluence of her experiences as a school board member and parole officer gives her the kind of credibility many of her peers lack when working with at-risk students. She always says, ``I have voted to expel students but I much prefer giving out diplomas.'' Gwen Estes is giving students a foundation to break free of their problems, a reason to care. In many cases, it is something they would not have gotten if it weren't for her. A description from one of her students aptly describes Ms. Estes' exemplary contributions to her students. ``Even though she is a teacher, she is your friend. We can have good days or bad days, but she always tells us we can be what we want to be. Miss E is one of a kind.'' Gwen Estes epitomizes the essence of the Ghandi, King, Ikeda award. She is bringing peace, unity, and hope to the classroom each day.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that recognized the fundamental right to privacy extends to a woman's decision whether or not to have an abortion with freedom from government intrusion. Roe transformed women's experiences in many ways: saved their lives, protected their health, fostered equality and paved the way for greater partnership with men in all aspects of our nation's life. This anniversary is an occasion for celebration, but also one for grave concern. At a time when the majority of state legislatures, the White House, and both houses of Congress are under anti-choice control, not to mention, the U.S. Supreme Court hanging in the balance, America is at risk of losing Roe v. Wade and the core values of privacy and freedom embodied in it. I believe Congress should continue the historic principles handed down in Roe by using our influence to plan for healthy families, prevent unintended pregnancies and protect a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice politicians, however, are attacking the right to choose from every angle. In the past year alone, they have pushed through a significant increase in state restrictions on the right to choose, as well as the first ever criminalization of safe abortion procedures, better known as the so-called ``partial birth'' abortion. President Bush went even further by placing extreme anti-choice ideologues on the federal courts, took away access to contraception, stripped foreign family planning clinics of desperately needed U.S. funds, and shifted priorities away from family planning services to unproven abstinence only programs. If these drastic measures weren't enough, I have only more bad news to share; it's very likely we'll find this year in Congress to be much of the same. just yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee began markup of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Proponents of this bill claim this legislation will protect unborn children from assault and murder, a mere smokescreen for the real intent of it's passage, another sneak attack on a woman's right to choose. Instead, Congress could enact serious and meaningful laws that prevent and punish violence and provide services to women and their families--which I would strongly support. So, on this anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the pro-choice majority in this country, especially those in the 13th District of California, and act immediately and powerfully to safeguard our liberty or it will be lost. The time to act is now.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make clear to my colleagues how the current Bush Administration and their cadre of religious zealots are again attempting to impose their ideological views not just across our country, but across the world. The Administration, with the backing of the anti-abortion movement and several predominantly Catholic countries, is strongly lobbying members of the United Nations General Assembly to vote for a resolution to enact a worldwide ban on therapeutic cloning. The Administration was not satisfied with their successful effort to cripple stem cell research in this country. Now, they want to use their considerable resources to destroy this promising research field throughout all United Nations member countries. And who will suffer if this effort is successful? People of all races, creeds, religions who suffer conditions as varied as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, chronic heart disease and spinal injuries. These are the individuals who have the most to lose if therapeutic cloning is banned. The following is a statement released by Don Reed who is a constituent from Fremont, California. Don and his wife Gloria are tireless advocates of spinal cord research. Their interest in this area is passionate and very personal. Their son Roman was a star college football player until he was paralyzed by a game injury that broke his neck. Since the accident, Roman has been confined to a wheelchair. The Reeds are very much aware of the promise of therapeutic cloning and stem cell research to someday help their son, and many others, to live less restricted lives. This statement describes the efforts of the Administration at the United Nations and provides a poignant view of its effect on his spinal injured son. White House Behind Christmas Attack on Stem Cell Research? ``This is like Scrooge putting Tiny Tim's doctor in jail,'' said stem cell activist Don C. Reed today, reacting to news that White House officials were part of a stealth campaign at the United Nations to internationally ban all forms of cloning with an up-or-down vote planned for December 8. ``My son is paralyzed with a spinal cord injury,'' said Reed. ``Therapeutic cloning for stem cells is our only realistic hope of cure: that he will one day stand up and walk. But the White House continually attacks that research, apparently because of the religious convictions of the President.'' As reported in Thursday's Financial Times of London, the Bush-backed Costa Rica plan would ban cloning everywhere. This would overturn the November 6 vote by the U.N.'s Legal Committee. By a razor-thin margin, (80-79, with 15 nations abstaining) that vote postponed a decision on the controversial therapy for two years. ``Mr. Bush did not like the way that vote turned out,'' said Reed. ``And he wants a new vote. Well, I did not like the way the 2000 Presidential election turned out, but I don't get to have that vote re-done. Millions of people will suffer, if the President can overturn the November 6th U.N. vote. That vote did not approve or disapprove therapeutic cloning. It only says, we should take time to make this important decision carefully. What's wrong with that?'' A more moderate measure, sponsored by Belgium and backed by the UK, would ban reproductive cloning but allow member nations to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning for medical research. This is opposed by the President, the Catholic church, and anti-abortion organizations. ``The American Medical Association supports therapeutic cloning,'' says Reed. ``As does our own National Academy of Science.'' Exhaustive studies have been done on therapeutic cloning again and again, both nationally and in the state of California, as well as in countries like England, Israel, Singapore and China. All arrive at the same conclusion: reproductive cloning of children is dangerous to the unborn child, and should be banned; but therapeutic cloning of stem cells is potentially enormously valuable to cure hundreds of diseases and disabilities, and should be preserved. ``None of the stem cell lines approved by the White House can ever be used to help people,'' says Reed. ``Because all of those stem cells were fed on rat feeder layers, which not only brings the possibility of interspecies infection, but also disqualifies them for human use according to FDA guidelines. To individualize embryonic stem cells for human use, therapeutic cloning for cells is a must.'' ``If therapeutic cloning is banned, embryonic stem cell research is effectively killed,'' said Reed, ``and my son is imprisoned in his wheelchair forever. This is not the sort of Christmas present one expects from the President of the United States.'' My fellow colleagues; advanced cellular research is a ray of hope for the Reeds and many others. And this hope is based in reality. According to the National Institutes of Health, therapeutic cloning and stem cell research has ``enormous'' potential to improve the lives of many. We should not interfere with this progress; we should embrace and support it. I ask you to join me and protest the efforts of the Bush administration at the United Nations to ban therapeutic cloning.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible Omnibus spending bill. This Republican bill is a stealth attempt to impose an extremist agenda on America--an agenda that most Americans don't support. But, therein lies the Republican's deceitful strategy: to hide numerous controversial provisions in the minutia and complexity of a huge Omnibus bill, then ram it through with less than a few hours of debate. Let's take a moment to see what this bill actually includes. It will deny workers their right to overtime. It gives President Bush--despite all his false rhetoric about caring for working families--the green light to impose government regulations denying overtime pay to millions of hardworking Americans. That's right, it takes away worker protections for fair pay. Does the bill then at least make sure workers who can't find jobs receive extended unemployment benefits? No. Nowhere in this bill is there a dime for working Americans who are unemployed. Why? Well, because Republicans simply refuse to extend unemployment benefits to the over 2 million Americans who are suffering from long-term extended unemployment. These are folks who have been out-of-work for 26 weeks or more unable to find a job. His father, when he was President, extended federal unemployment benefits for these people, but this President Bush doesn't see any need to be that compassionate. While the President talks about recent minimal job growth as if it was ``mission accomplished'' on the economy, it isn't enough to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared since he took office. There are still 14 million Americans either out of work or making due with part time employment. We must do more to help these families survive. But, nothing is included in this last bill that Congress will consider this year. Of course this Republican Omnibus doesn't stop at making life harder for working Americans or ignoring Americans out of work. It also goes after America's veterans. It cuts the budget for the Veterans Administration by $443 million. This includes a $15 million cut for medical care. Putting veterans health care on a shoestring budget isn't the way to reward those who have fought for this country or those who have come back critically injured from their duty in Iraq. This bill also hurts women's reproductive rights. It prevents federal employees from accessing reproductive health services under the health plans they pay into. It prohibits the District of Columbia from offering assistance for low-income women to access needed reproductive services. These women should not be singled out and prevented from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive choice. But, that is exactly the path this bill sets us on. This bill shortchanges America's public schools. It does this by taking a first step toward a federal program of vouchers for private schools by creating a school voucher demonstration program for Washington, DC. It doesn't matter that this demonstration will take money away from the DC public school system which serves all DC's students, while providing necessary funds for only a few students to attend private schools. This bill also undermines the diversity of our media marketplace by opening the door for the concentration of corporate power and influence over the public's airwaves. Even though the House and Senate each voted to maintain the existing Federal Communication Commission limitations on media ownership, this bill permits the FCC to allow greater concentration of media ownership. It will diminish the diversity of viewpoints and programming placing our very marketplace of ideas in the hands of a few major media conglomerates. With Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the White House, this type of appropriations process in which everything is thrown into one, huge bill should be unnecessary. But, the facts is that this bill exists because the Republican leadership could not get their job done. Congress did not pass 7 of the nation's 13 spending bills that are required to keep the government operating. But, I also suspect that the Republican leadership has done this on purpose--using the Omnibus bill to all their extreme objectives enacted when they couldn't pass on their own. After all, the House already voted down destroying overtime pay for America's workers. The Senate had been unwilling to vote on school vouchers. And, both the House and Senate voted down new media ownership rules. Yet, they have all reared their ugly heads again in the Omnibus bill that will be the final business the House will consider this year. If most Americans were allowed to hear a real debate on this shameful and irresponsible bill, they would urge us to vote it down. I urge my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill despite being one of its cosponsors and having voted for it when it came before the House on October 15th. I strongly believe Syria's actions ought to be called into question. To say this regime is a bad actor is putting it mildly. Their actions are rightly condemned, especially when it comes to their tacit support for terrorism and ongoing occupation of Lebanon. The United States ought to use the tools at our disposal--both political and economic--to demand an end to their egregious policies. There is, however, a reason why I am voting against this resolution. It is based on my long held reservations about the President's intentions on foreign policy. Given his belligerent declarations yesterday, I have genuine concerns that he may seek authority in this resolution to pursue aggressive military action against Syria. After all, Mr. Speaker, this President did not need much to march to war against Iraq. At best, the evidence was soft, the intelligence was trumped up and now not a grain of proof can be found showing Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. But, ultimately, President Bush used past declarations of Congress meant merely to reprimand Iraq for its policies to justify full-blown war against that regime. This resolution today contains provisions that rightly admonish Syria, but do so on the basis of reasonable beliefs and assumptions, not proven facts. Most notably, there is reference to Syria's ``hostile actions'' in regard to the United States and our troops in Iraq. Although our suspicions are well founded, there is as yet no proven connection between the government of Syria and terrorism in Iraq. I have concerns the President may not draw this distinction and take these words as grounds for pursuing preemptive military action. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't trust this President. His actions toward Iraq have clearly demonstrated his willingness to lie to the American people. But, they also underscore his willingness to use force indiscriminately without the burden of proof. I cannot support a resolution that might be used as a vehicle for the President to act counter to the interest of the American people. I vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act of 2003. My bill would expand Medicare eligibility for uninsured patients with advanced chronic kidney disease before their condition progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) status. The bill would provide access to healthcare and most importantly disease management and pre-ESRD educational and counseling services. It would improve the health and quality of life for those suffering from kidney disease and could provide real savings for the Medicare program by helping chronic kidney disease patients delay costly dialysis treatments and kidney transplants associated with the end stage status of the disease. ESRD patients are the only group of patients eligible for Medicare enrollment solely due to their medical diagnosis. ESRD is characterized by a permanent loss of kidney function, which results in the need for dialysis treatments or kidney transplantation in order to sustain life. Under current law, a physician must certify that an individual's kidney functions have deteriorated to end-stage status for a patient to be eligible for the Medicare ESRD program. Subsequently, there may be an additional waiting period of up to 3 months depending on the type of dialysis procedure chosen by the patient before the individual becomes eligible for benefits. Thus, benefits are only received after the cessation of adequate kidney functioning. The cost to the Federal Government for providing care to an ESRD patient is very high. The average per capita expense for all ESRD patients was $33,282 in 2000, approximately 8 times the annual cost of care for the average Medicare beneficiary. The annual cost for in- center hemodialysis, the most frequent form of dialysis used, approaches $55,000. There has been a substantial amount of research within the past several years indicating that the provision of improved medical care and disease-related pre-ESRD educational and counseling services to advanced chronic kidney disease patients prior to their progressing to end-stage renal status has multiple positive effects. The provision of these pre-ESRD services slows down the progression toward ESRD status, decreases the occurrence and intensity of related diseases and decreases overall mortality rates. By allowing uninsured patients with advanced kidney disease to access care prior to qualifying for Medicare due to an End Stage Renal Disease diagnosis, this bill wisely and appropriately addresses a critical unmet health need. Under the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act, uninsured, pre-ESRD chronic kidney disease patients would be eligible for full Medicare coverage and pre-ESRD counseling and educational services. To be eligible, a physician would need to certify that a chronic kidney disease patient has reached a level of kidney functioning deterioration predictive of a need for dialysis or a transplant in the next 1\1/2\ years under a widely accepted clinical standard. Individuals eligible under the bill would pay Medicare Part B premiums. Pre-ESRD educational and counseling services provided by this legislation address treatment options, disease management, and nutrition. These new services would also be available to current Medicare enrollees who become diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. This bill also requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services establish at least 2 demonstration projects in cooperation with recognized kidney patient organizations, to devise ways, or demonstrate means through which peer education procedures can slow progress to ESRD and improve outcomes for patients with this disease. Today, more than 300,000 individuals are covered under the Medicare ESRD program. By 2010, it is expected that this number will more than double. This bill, which is supported by the National Kidney Association and the American Association of Kidney Patients, will help minimize the damaging impact of this chronic illness and slow the growth of individuals suffering from ESRD. By delaying the need for either dialysis or transplantation, one can also anticipate substantial cost savings to the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act so we can make these vital improvements to the Medicare program for those who suffer from chronic kidney disease.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who knows that all of the other members of the Older Women's League understand that this bill was supposed to modernize Medicare, not eviscerate it; and to deny basic health services for those who need it most, to increase the profits of the health care industry is criminal. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and pending that, I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut that 41,000 people in Connecticut are likely to lose employer-sponsored coverage under this bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds of that precious time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), one of the gentlemen who was a conferee but does not know.