Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There they go again. I do not think they understand their own bill. Between 135 percent and 150 percent of poverty, there is a 15 percent copay, and regardless of what my colleague says, there are many, many poor seniors are going to pay more under this bill than they do now, but it is sad that the people who wrote the bill do not know what they are talking about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the distinguished member of our caucus who is in the pharmaceutical business.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who agrees with the Albany Times Union that what older Americans can least afford is for Congress to rush into a sweeping overhaul of a successful health care program without doing its research. This is not only an imperfect bill. It may also be a disastrous one. (Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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 myself 15 seconds. I remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) that the seniors do not need to be misrepresented. I will not call it lying, but nowhere in that bill does it mention any percentage that they will save on the drug discount. You cannot find it in the bill because it is not in there. So do not tell the seniors something that is not true. It is not respectful. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans can lock out two of the leading Democratic legislators from their conference committee, but just to show you that we are bigger than all that, we will turn the other cheek. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who agrees with the Boston Globe that this experiment needs to be stopped before the Republicans in Congress damage a program that has served the elderly well for 38 years.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who is a woman who agrees with Al Hunt, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that this is an open rip-off by HMOs. There is a reason most Americans and, virtually all who have endured serious medical issues, despise HMOs. They are, with few exceptions, vultures. (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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 am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I first start by reminding the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington that the Seattle Times said that one suspects that many conservatives do not really care how the chips fall as long as they are heavy enough to break the back of traditional Medicare. All this talk about choice and updating or modernizing Medicare with market competition is pure malarky. So it does appear that somebody from the State of Washington understands what is going on here tonight. But we are faced with a problem, and the Republican Party from the very top of its leadership to the very bottom have been lying to us. They have been lying to us about the war. They have been revising history. They have been going back on their word to give us 3 days. They have proven that we cannot trust them. Just recently, the past few minutes, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means indicated that they had attempted to put in preventative measures. He seems to have forgotten that in 1995 he voted against colon cancer testing. He voted against prostate cancer testing. He voted against annual mammography. He voted against diabetes management. He has voted more often to cut Medicare benefits than he can remember, it appears. So we are faced tonight with people who want to destroy Medicare. They will lie to us. They will lie to seniors for the pure purpose of their own messianic desires to destroy a system that will protect the fragile seniors in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), who agrees with the Arizona Daily Star from Tucson that by doing nothing to address the cost of medicines and by raising payments to private HMOs that want to compete with Medicare, the bill dooms the Medicare program to major problems down the road.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) who agrees with the Houston Chronicle, the Republicans are interested only in the illusion of providing a popular benefit, a Republican driven bill to, quote, improve Medicare is impossible.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that the United Steel Workers of America have said a vote for this measure is a vote to destroy the stability and long-term viability of the Medicare system. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record at this point a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that outlines some of the bases for our request for more time to evaluate the bill. Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Nov. 19, 2003. Hon. David Dreier, Chairman, House Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my longtime friend Lillian Kessler. It is with sadness that I announce Lillian's recent passing. She resided in my 13th congressional district and I was pleased and proud to have her support and friendship for many years. As a truly committed political and community activist, Lillian spent years volunteering in the community and working tirelessly to elect individuals to public office. She was proud to call herself a Democrat for more than 50 years. Lillian and her husband Mike were the first two people to encourage me to seek my present office in Congress. Lillian was an active member in the Hayward Demos Democratic Club. Her fellow club members describe her as ``a tower of strength for their club, the Democratic Party and progressives everywhere. She was a quintessential activist, organizing precinct walking, phone banks, fundraisers, all the necessary jobs to run and win grassroots campaigns.'' I shall remember with fondness and admiration Lillian's passion, strength and perseverance to make a difference. She believed that just one progressive idea or action, no matter how small, could strengthen each and every community for the better. Lillian will be sorely missed by me and all who knew her. My thoughts and condolences are with her husband Mike and her children, Civia and Stuart.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I extend my thanks as well to the gentleman from North Carolina for his enterprise and efforts in seeing this bill brought to the floor, and to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her work, as well as the people who have been mentioned, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and others who have been concerned about it. I think that I have today to give credit where credit is due. This bill should really be referred to as the Deborah Stark bill. Now, who is Deborah Stark? She happens to be the mother of my children and my long- suffering wife. And this bill has its genesis right down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue where she went one day, when we still lived in California full time, to have her eyes examined because her contact lenses were giving her problems and, hopefully, to get a new prescription and send it out to California to have it filled, so she would have her new contact lenses when she arrived home in California. So she went to this physician down the road. And as she was about to leave, having then paid the bill, she was told that she could not have a copy of the prescription. She was, not surprisingly, incredulous. I was not only incredulous, I was mildly upset, and that led to this day. So we do not sit back here, as many people think, as Members of Congress, and just dream up ways to make life complicated for ophthalmologists and optometrists. We respond, generally not to constituents quite so close to home, but we respond to the problems that people in this country have, and it takes us often a long time, in this case almost 10 years. But when we get there, we do a good job, as we see with the many people who have worked to do this. I would like to add that Consumers Union was one of the early supporters of this bill and helped us to work it through. It is the law in California already, and I am sure that the other 30 million people who do not reside in California who wear contact lenses, I am too cowardly to stick my finger in my eye, so I do not, but many people will be pleased, and it will be of great convenience to them. I am one who happens to believe in free enterprise, and I think it is going to create some competition in the world and perhaps make lives better for everyone concerned in this. So, again, my thanks to those people who worked so hard. It is a good bill. The consumers will benefit. The advocates for all the providers involved have worked with us to support it, and I urge its adoption. I'm pleased to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act and urge every Member of Congress to join us in voting for this important consumer protection legislation. This bill requires eye care professionals to provide their patients with a copy of their contact lens prescription so the patient can choose to purchase their contact lenses from that professional or seek an alternative provider. The bill also enforces a verification system for prescriptions that puts the onus on eye doctors to quickly verify their patients' contact lens prescriptions. This makes real the option for consumers to purchase their contact lenses through third parties-- such as online venders--which are often more affordable and convenient for consumers. This is a law my home State of California has already enacted and one that consumers deserve to have in all parts of our country. This might not be a high profile issue, but it is important to the 36 million of contact lens wearers around the country. Eyeglass wearers have enjoyed unobstructed access to their eyeglass prescriptions since the Federal Trade Commission issued regulations in 1978 requiring their automatic release. Yet, 25 years later, similar action has yet to be taken for contact lens wearers. If this bill is enacted, we will finally have brought contact lens consumer protections up-to-date. I got involved in this issue more than a decade ago when my wife asked her eye care provider in D.C. for her contact lens prescription so she would have it if she needed it while we were in California. To her--and my--astonishment, the provider refused to give her the prescription saying that the law did not require him to do so. We checked it out and he was correct. I've been working to fix this problem ever since. The simple fact is that contact lenses are fast replacing eyeglasses as the corrective vision instrument of choice for consumers. Despite this trend, many States allow prescribing eye care professionals to refuse to release contact lens prescriptions to their patients. Eye doctors cite health concerns, but the fact is that they have a strong financial incentive to restrict consumer access to the contact lens market. Without their contact lens prescription in hand, consumers are forced to purchase their lenses from their prescribing eye doctor--who obviously profits from each and every sale. Over the years, I've introduced several bills to require the release of contact lens prescriptions. For the last several years, Representatives Burr, Dingell, Tauzin, Waxman, Schakowsky and I have been working together to fashion a bipartisan bill that can garner the support of a broad coalition to ensure its passage. That day is here. I started out this effort with the support of Consumers Union and I'm pleased they have endorsed this version of the legislation as well. I'm also pleased that the American Optometric Association has been willing to come to the negotiating table and has also endorsed this final version of our legislation. That tells you this is a good bill--we've got consumers and optometrists--the largest providers of contact lenses--agreeing that this day has come. It is time to update our consumer protection laws to ensure that contact lens wearers have the right to safely purchase their lenses from the provider that best meets their needs. Join us in support of H.R. 3140 to give consumers that right.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this final Energy bill. It's fiscally irresponsible, unfair to consumers and a threat to our health and environment. It provides too little for conservation and clean, renewable energy sources. And it won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil or lower energy costs for consumers as Republicans have claimed. No matter the Republican rhetoric, this isn't smart energy policy. It doesn't reflect forward thinking. It isn't the result of thoughtful debate or bipartisan cooperation. Democrats were shut out as this backroom deal was cut by special interests on the backs of American taxpayers. And as they say, to the winner go the spoils. This bill is nothing less than a special interest giveaway piled high with huge corporate tax breaks totaling $23.5 billion. Half of these go to the oil and gas industry alone despite huge profit margins and a robust energy market where crude oil prices have risen over $30 a barrel. But, there are also tax breaks for renewed development of nuclear power and subsidies for the production of so-called ``clean coal''--an oxymoron if I ever heard one. With all this money for pumped up fossil fuel production, what about conservation? After all, that is a critical piece of reducing energy costs and ending dependence of foreign oil. Well, this conference agreement falsely claims to provide $9 billion in tax incentives for energy conservation. But, consider what this is for: the repeal of the excise tax on diesel fuel used for railroads and inland waterway barges; a tax credit for nuclear power production; and an extension of energy production credits. I'd call that conserving corporate profits, not energy. So what about clean renewable technologies such as wind and solar power? Well, to use the words of the lead Senate conferee in opposing subsidies for renewable energy, ``You will be sick of seeing windmills in about 10 years.'' Well, most Americans are sick of the kind of pollution big oil companies put into our air and water or the way drilling can destroy our oceans and wilderness. Make no mistake, it is the oil industry that makes out big under this bill. And don't think these Republicans hold these big energy corporations any more accountable with all these subsidies. They expect less--not more--from industry when it comes to protecting our air and water. Consider the byproducts this Republican Energy bill is dumping on the American people: Under one special interest provision, the EPA is barred from taking enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act against Halliburton and other oil companies for using a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing. This process speeds up oil extraction by shooting diesel fuel into the ground, allowing this fuel and its cancer causing agents to leak into underground aquifers and contaminating drinking water supplies. Oil companies are exempted from the Clean Water Act's so-called waste-water runoff rules allowing them to pollute our Nation's waterways with industrial byproducts. Another provision allows these and other energy producers to flaunt the Clean Air Act by delaying deadlines for compliance with air quality standards in certain, select areas in which they operate. This means that clean air standards will be weakest in the areas in which air pollution is the worst. But, that's not all. Local taxpayers get stuck with the bill for cleaning up pollution caused by the fuel additive MTBE, which the National League of Cities estimates will cost $30 billion. This is a serious problem in my State of California. But, in a recent study, the U.S. Geological Survey found that nearly 55 percent of all urban water systems have been polluted by MTBE. Yet, Republicans are exempting oil and gas companies from any liability for the drinking water contamination caused by their fuel additive. That simply isn't fair to the cash-strapped local communities that will have to bear this burden. Nor is it responsible to threaten the health of every American as expensive clean-ups are further delayed without the resources to carry them out. I believe we ought to hold these corporate polluters accountable, especially as Republicans dole out huge subsidies to the oil and gas industry that is responsible for this mess. Now, you may be asking yourselves then, what exactly do Americans get in return for all this pork and swindle? Cheaper gas prices? Cheaper electricity? Hardly. The Republicans fail to take a stand to protect consumers against exorbitant energy prices or fraudulent pricing schemes. Given the billions Enron swindled from consumers in California, this ought to be a top priority. But lo and behold, the Republicans have barred the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from instituting new rules to protect consumers from price gouging. Their bill fails to include strict anti-fraud provisions to crack down on shady business schemes such those employed by Enron--those that sparked the Energy Crisis. Republicans even repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act that insulates ratepayers from bearing the cost of risky energy ventures while protecting investors from tricky corporate accounting maneuvers. I urge my colleagues to say no to this shameful bill. Americans deserve better than this special interest giveaway. Let's stand up for an innovative, clean and responsible energy policy that conserves our resources and preserves our environment. Vote down this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Veterans Day on November 11, 2003 and to pay tribute to the veterans in Alameda County, California. As we pause to remember the valiant men and women who have nobly served our country, I join the Alameda County Veterans' Affairs Commission and the city of Hayward to commemorate Alameda County's 50th Annual Veterans Day Parade. The Alameda County Veterans' Affairs Commission is a diverse group of men and women who stand together with the same discipline and patriotism and the same values and uncommon valor that they fostered in the battles they fought for our nation. Last year's program, Honoring All Who Served, stated, ``as long as there are men and women in uniform, stationed across the world, there will be a body of veterans' organizations defending and upholding the rights of our fighting men and women.'' I commend their tireless efforts. This year, the Commission has again taken the charge to prepare and promote the annual Veterans Day Parade ceremonies. I join them in honoring our veterans and in dedication to world peace.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 2d annual Youth Conference on Asian and Pacific Islanders' Health being organized by the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University on November 7 through November 9, 2003. During this 3-day conference, more than 100 high school students and their families from throughout California will discuss a variety of health issues of particular concern to the API community. These issues include youth identity, teen smoking and cultural competency in medicine. A major issue to be addressed is the high vulnerability that Asian and Pacific Islanders have to hepatitis B and its related effect of liver cancer. The Asian and Pacific Islanders community comprise over 11% of my home state of California. Unfortunately, many Americans of Asian and Pacific Island background have no awareness of their heightened risk of acquiring hepatitis B. While the rate of hepatitis B infection for all Americans is less than .5%, for API Americans the rate is 7%--14 times higher. The symptoms of this illness are often not apparent to the individual until the irreversible effects of liver cancer become evident. This silent killer is often spread from unsuspecting mothers to newborn infants at childbirth. It is also spread through child-to-child infection as result of contact with skins sores, small breaks in the skin or such activities as sharing a toothbrush. Luckily, the spread of this awful disease can be prevented through a simple series of vaccinations. But, people need to be educated about the need for such vaccinations. A major goal of the Youth Conference is to create a cadre of emissaries to go out into the API community to increase awareness of this vulnerability to hepatitis B and liver cancer and to educate the populace on means of prevention and treatment. Many in the API community are not aware that there is a vaccine that offers full protection from hepatitis B. Many are not vaccinated because they simply are not aware of the problem. The unnecessary deaths from this disease must be stopped now. The Asian Liver Center has it right--increased knowledge is the key to prevention. I commend the students and their families for taking time out of their busy lives to become more knowledgeable about these important health issues and to help spread their knowledge throughout their communities. I also commend the staff of the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University for organizing this conference and for their mission of addressing the high incidence of hepatitis B in the API population through outreach, education and research. This program is clearly one that should be emulated by many other organizations around the country.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many people have seen that CBS will soon air a miniseries on the Reagans. I must admit that the only reason I'm aware of it is because our esteemed colleague, John D. Dingell, was good enough to share the letter below with us. He's got it right. If CBS is going to commemorate the Reagan years, they should do it accurately. I recommend the letter below as an effective tool for remembering the host of egregious events that occurred during the Reagan Administration. October 29, 2003. Mr. Leslie Moonves, President and CEO, CBS Television, New York, NY. Dear Mr. Moonves: I write to you with regard to your upcoming mini-series ``The Reagans.'' I share the concerns expressed by others that it may not present an accurate depiction of the Reagan administration and America during the 1980s. I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted presentation of American history, and that the mini-series will present a fair and balanced portrayal of the Reagans, the 1980s and their legacy. As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the miniseries: $640 Pentagon toilet seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; IranContra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling. I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan's time in office. With every good wish, Sincerely yours, John D. Dingell, Member of Congress.