Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FAA conference agreement. While the conference report does remove the air traffic control privatization language from the report, that action is completely inadequate. Because the Administration has been so outspoken about moving forward with its plans to privatize air traffic controllers in airports across the country, there must be a clear prohibition on any such privatization in this bill. One of the airports targeted by the Administration is in my district, the Hayward Executive Airport. I will not support a bill that fails to protect my community from the threat of privatization. Members of both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly to stop the privatization of our nation's air control towers through directive language. Both chambers also voted to require the Transportation Security Administration to establish mandatory guidelines for antiterrorism training for flight attendants. These and other important issues were simply overturned by Republican Congressional leaders and the White House--without even a perfunctory meeting of the FAA Conference Committee which is supposed to be in charge of revising the legislation. The Federal Aviation Administration declared air traffic control services a ``commercial activity'' presumably to avail air traffic safety to private market interests. This is a completely misguided approach to air traffic safety in light of the events of September 11. Congress must do all it can to ensure that the safety of air traffic remains in the skilled hands, and under the close scrutiny, of our government. It is as much a public safety concern as are police or firefighters and no one is advocating turning their jobs over to the private sector. The United States air traffic control system handles more than half of the world's air traffic cargo, and it is the safest in the world. The FAA air traffic controllers serve as the lynchpin of this system. These dedicated federal employees ensure the safety of nearly one million passengers every day. Their professionalism and skill was tested under uncertain circumstances on September 11, 2001. FAA air traffic controllers successfully landed 5,000 planes in two hours. They accomplished a feat that no one ever thought possible, and a task that no one wishes to repeat. The magnitude of that one accomplishment is testament to a system that works beyond anyone's comprehension. Our air traffic control system is the envy of the world. Other nations that have privatized their air traffic control systems have encountered unending difficulties and problems. Canada, Great Britain and Australia have experienced questionable safety standards, increased delays, financial bailouts from the government, and plummeting staff morale. Privatization of air traffic control is a big mistake and this conference report does nothing to prevent the Bush Administration from making the mistake anyway. We must learn from the lessons of other nations, and give credit to a system that has performed above and beyond expectations. I urge my colleagues to reject privatization of our nation's air traffic system and vote no on the FAA conference report.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert L. Wonder, Assistant City Manager in the City of Alameda, California. Mr. Wonder has announced his retirement at the end of 2003, having served the public for over 30 years. Following his military service in the Marine Corps, he became a dedicated employee of the City of Alameda for 28 years. Mr. Wonder joined the city's workforce in 1975 through CETA, a federally funded training program, and became the Assistant City Manager in 1980. During his tenure with the City of Alameda, Mr. Wonder has served as Interim City Manager several times; worked on the Cooperative Services Agreement with the U.S. Navy successfully negotiating $18 million of federal funding to the City to operate and maintain the base during the property transfer period; worked with the Airport Operations Committee and the Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity, as well as the Cable TV Advisory Committee. He has also been involved with the City of Alameda's efforts to construct a new main library and he has a reputation for trying to make local government more understandable, responsive and accessible to citizens. In 1998, Mr. Wonder received the Alameda Times Star Man of the Year Award and the League of California Cities John H. Nail Memorial Award. He was honored as one of 1998's Distinguished Municipal Assistants by the Municipal Management Association of Northern California, of which he has been an active member since 1967. Mr. Wonder has also served as a mentor in the Intergovernmental Management Training Program for 20 years. During his tenure teaching a public administration course at California State University, Hayward, he inspired students to seek public office. Mr. Wonder is also extensively involved in community organizations and events. He has shown his commitment to the community by serving as a member and officer of the Board of Directors for numerous community and civic organizations such as Girls' Inc., Foundation for Educational Excellence, Rotary Club, Alameda Chapter of the Navy League, Chamber of Commerce and Immanuel Lutheran Church. He has spent countless hours volunteering in the community, such as delivering for Meals on Wheels, the Annual Run for the Parks, the Mayor's Fourth of July parade, the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, career days for local schools, City festivals and beach clean-up days. On Saturday, November 15, 2003, a retirement gala to honor Rob Wonder will be held on the USS Hornet in Alameda. I join the friends and admirers of this outstanding public servant in wishing him well on his retirement. He has served with distinction and left an indelible mark of service and caring on the City of Alameda.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Deanna Espina, who recently retired from the San Lorenzo Unified School District. Deanna will be honored at a reception and I join her friends and associates in thanking her for her many years of contributions. Deanna began her 29 year career with the San Lorenzo Unified School District on October 14, 1974, as a community Relations Aide. After a few years, her classification was changed to Native American Indian Program Specialist assigned to Educational Services. She has supervised various programs and also teaches youngsters about the Native American culture. She was always seeking innovative instructional strategies for students as evidenced by the Star-Lab lesson. The numerous hours spent preparing, organizing and coordinating the Star-Lab presentation for hundreds of students contributed to the Star-Lab Program's success. With the San Lorenzo School District's support, Deanna has developed and advanced the Indian Education Program in the San Lorenzo schools in a commendable way. The Alameda County Office of Education has recognized her for the outstanding work she has done in meeting the needs of Native American students. She has played a significant role by providing leadership to sustain and foster a Native American Program that continually has value for students and the community. Over 29,000 students, parents and teachers have participated in the Native American Museum, established in the San Lorenzo School District, due to the efforts of Deanna. The museum's presentations focus on many Native American cultures with emphasis on California's indigenous people. The school district's Native American program has been recognized at the federal, state and local levels and is a model for other Native American Programs in the United States. Deanna's leadership, her knowledge of her projects, her enthusiasm, and commitment to the community through the years are exemplary. She has brought Native American Indian Education to the forefront and I applaud her outstanding contributions to education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 279 that recognizes the 30th anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program. Each year, this fine program brings to Capitol Hill talented individuals representing the natural, physical, and social sciences and all fields of engineering. Since its inception in 1973, over 800 AAAS Fellows have participated in this year-long experience in Congress. This program is a remarkable partnership between Congress and the 30 or so participating professional societies that select and fund the Fellows. At no cost to Congress, these Fellows offer their substantial expertise and experience to various personal offices and committees in return for the opportunity to be immersed in the legislative process. I have been fortunate enough to work with many AAAS fellows over my Congressional career. Without exception, they have been valuable additions to my staff. I especially appreciate the real world perspective they bring to us. While I've legislated in health care for several decades, I've never been trained in any of the health care disciplines. Having professionals on my staff who can provide that expertise has proved extremely beneficial and has probably helped keep well meant, but poorly designed legislation from becoming law on more than one occasion. In my office, a fellow is treated exactly as other members of my staff. They have issue areas of expertise and perform all of the duties necessary to move those issues forward. Fellows have performed many tasks. One initiated innovative legislation to update Medicare's mental health coverage--which we are still attempting to enact years later. A more recent fellow developed legislation to restructure the Individuals with Disabilities Act so that we could meet our federal commitment to fully fund the education of students with disabilities. I could go on and on with examples of their contributions. The AAAS fellows in my office are always focused on health policy and are often psychologists. I know I speak for myself and many other members of my staff in saying that we have found that background useful personally as well as professionally. The AAAS Fellowship program is a shining example of a collaborative program that benefits all whom participate. The fellows get a strong understanding of the legislative process and Congress gets the benefit of someone with real world expertise in areas in which we legislate. I want to commend the AAAS for establishing this program and providing the infrastructure and organization that helps maintain its excellence. This program brings much needed scientific expertise to the halls of Congress and helps develop a cadre of scientific professionals knowledgeable about public policy and the legislative process. I look forward to continuing to work with AAAS fellows. Over the years, they have become an integral part of my staff. Thanks again to AAAS for maintaining this valuable resource for Congress.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill spending $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to finish what the President started in Iraq. We must honor our commitment to help the Iraqi people rebuild. Our troops must have the resources to safely complete their mission. But, what is the President's strategy for Iraq? Where is the Administration's plan other than this bloated spending bill that continues to throw good money after bad. The American people deserve more accountability for the billions we continue to spend. In Iraq, we're still witnessing chaos and violence in the streets. There's been little improvement in basic living standards as many Iraqis continue to suffer without water or electricity. It is unclear how and when authority will be transferred to a new, unified Iraqi government. In the meantime, our young men and women in uniform are walking targets--daily casualties continue to rise. Terrorist groups have found safe haven in Iraq and now pose a threat far greater to our security than any previously posed by Saddam Hussein. And not one shred of evidence has been recovered showing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as the President falsely claimed. In the midst of it all our commander-in-chief has not shown the vision and leadership to right the course. His Administration is divided and confused. And the world refuses to aid our nation with our President having been so arrogant as to shun their full participation, foolishly believing we can win the peace alone. In fact, the Administration is trying so hard to keep a lid on this daily disaster and keeping information from getting out, that they even have the Army on the ground in Iraq doing spin control. As reported in yesterday's Washington Post, an officer with the Combined Joint Task Force in Mosul inadvertently distributed an internal email to the media giving strict orders to the 101st Airborne not to ``highlight killing the enemy'' in their press releases. ``The intent to show that we are taking the fight to the enemy etc. is well understood,'' wrote the captain. ``However, we don't want to get into an enemy body count,'' he concluded. I guess the Administration thinks making a good impression is better than presenting the facts when lives are on the line. This deception must not be tolerated. It is time for Congress to hold this President accountable. I will not support writing a blank check to fund this disaster without a strategy for ending it. There are billions in borrowed money for this failed policy that'll shoot the deficit farther through the roof while burying our children in debt. And this won't be the last time this Administration comes begging at the trough. Make no mistake, we will continue to pay the price for this misadventure. According to the National Priorities Project, the cost to California so far for overall Iraq spending is over $18 billion. This is money being taken away from important priorities for Californians, like expanded unemployment benefits for those out of work, teacher training and smaller class sizes in our schools, improved access to health care for families, and investments in our infrastructure and security. In fact, while Iraq is plush with billions in new funding for roads and infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals and medical care, these same investments have been cut by Republicans here at home. Today, there are 9 million Americans out of work. America has lost 3.2 million private sector jobs since this President took office. Yet, this same President wants us to pay for the creation of 3 million new jobs in Iraq. There is no question the Iraqi people need and deserve our help to rebuild. But, we have our own reconstruction needs at home amidst the war the Bush Administration has been waging on working Americans and middle class families. It is this majority of Americans who are being forced to bear the cost of this war. They are making the sacrifices. Yet the richest Americans get to keep the lush tax breaks they don't need as big defense contractors grow fat on wasteful budget pork they don't deserve. If we were to suspend President Bush's tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans--the top income tax bracket--it is estimated that we could save $125 to $150 billion that could be used to fund ongoing operations in Iraq. We could also save billions by suspending funds that have been appropriated in the Pentagon's 2004 budget for unneeded and wasteful programs. We could take away $9 billion appropriated for the pie-in- the-sky Star Wars program; $1.1 billion being paid to Northrop Grumman for design of the Navy's DDX Land Attack Destroyer the Congressional Budget Office says ought to be scrapped; $2.3 billion to General Dynamics for one Virginia Class submarine, just one of 18 the Pentagon plans to build; $3 billion to Boeing for the F-18 E/F that according to the General Accounting Office hasn't met performance goals justifying its development; $3.7 billion to Lockheed Martin for the controversial F-22, the most expensive plane ever built that was designed to combat Soviet aircraft that no longer exist; and $4.3 billion to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program CBO argues could save $17 billion between now and 2013 if Congress just slowed down its development. In suspending these Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations alone, we would save nearly $24 billion that could be applied to operations in Iraq. Congress has a clear message to send to the President: winning the peace in Iraq cannot be won on the backs of working Americans. Investments made abroad must be made at home and the sacrifices being made for Iraq must be shared. I urge my colleagues to hold this President accountable to the American people. Demand a clear strategy from this Administration, rip up this blank check, and vote down this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David B. Castro. He has worked tirelessly in behalf of the Hispanic community. David Bedoya Castro was born in Sonora, Arizona and spent his youth as a farm worker following the crops in California with his family. He made use of the schooling available to farm workers in the early 1930's with the knowledge even then that it was education that would improve the quality of life for himself and his family. In 1942, David volunteered to join the Marines and received two honorable discharges for service in World War II and Korea. Upon returning to his home in Hayward, California, David began working in the local cannery, became a shop steward and moved through the ranks to become a union official and labor organizer. He was the first union Hispanic Secretary Treasurer. His main focus was to improve the wages, and working conditions of workers in the eleven western states. David would go beyond the duties of his job, and would help those in need by providing clothing; necessities and jobs. In 1997, David became a Field Representative for Alameda County and was responsible for recruiting Hispanics for employment. At the beginning of his career with Alameda County, only 3 percent of Hispanics were employed in the County. When he retired in 1989, that number had risen to 23 percent. David continually looked for ways to improve conditions for Hispanics. He knew that education and community involvement was the key to success. His inspiration led to founding of the Hispanic Community Affairs Council (HCAC), an organization dedicated to the betterment of Hispanic communities. HCAC recently celebrated its 26th anniversary and continues its goal of fostering a better education for Latino youth. HCAC has awarded over $1 million in scholarships to Latino students. As a visionary and dedicated community activist, David recognized another need. Businesses in the East Bay needed a way to meet and hire qualified Hispanics. This spurred the idea for HEBAN, The Hispanic East Bay Area Network, which brings prospective employers and job seekers together. After retiring in 1989, David began researching his family history, which led him to a village in the Sierra Madre called Mezquital Del Oro, Mexico. In the church of this small town he discovered his family genealogy in ancient documents tracing his heritage back to 1660. He also discovered people in need and began providing support through donations of clothing, household, school and medical supplies. David, with the help of friend Librado Perez and cousin Isidro Magallanes provided an ambulance to the town of Mezuital Del Oro. The ambulance was a life saver for the town because previously the injured or seriously ill had to find available transportation, usually a truck, to drive them 100 miles to the nearest hospital. I am proud that David Castro is one my constituents and a longtime friend. His caring, motivation and tenacity have provided numerous contributions to many. I applaud his good work and join his friends, colleagues and admirers in thanking him for all he does for others. David is a humanitarian and community leader in every respect.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this deceptive and dangerous conference report S. 3, brought to the floor today to ban what anti-choice lawmakers claim to be the so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion procedure. There is no medical procedure called a ``partial birth'' abortion. It is a political term, not a medical one. That is why what's happening today is so dangerous. If this bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe v. Wade that performing an abortion procedure will be deemed a criminal act. Even more alarming, it will be the first time in this nation's history, that Congress will have ever banned a particular medical procedure. Make no mistake about it, what this bill does is put Congress in the position of making life and death medical decisions appropriately left to physicians. Instead of dealing with the more pressing issues of the day--like the 44 million people who lack health insurance in this country, the 9 million people without jobs, or bringing our troops safely home from the war in Iraq--we are instead debating a safe medical procedure that is used only in very rare instances when a doctor determines it is the only procedure that can best protect the life or health of the woman. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska abortion ban, identical to this bill, as unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart. The court found that the law unconstitutionally burdened a woman's right to choose by banning safe abortion procedures; and it lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect women's health. Both these constitutional flaws remain the bill before us today. This bill still lacks any health exception and remains vague so that it may be used to ban other safe abortion procedures in the future. Anti-choice lawmakers have made claims today that the majority of Americans are in favor of banning what they understand to be partial birth abortions. But, a recent ABC News poll, found that 61% of Americans were in fact opposed to this legislation when they are informed that it lacks a health exception for a woman. The most telling argument in this debate comes from our nation's medical community. They oppose this legislation. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association all oppose this ban. They know full well that it will override their medical decision- making in an unprecedented and potentially life-threatening way. I believe that a woman's right to choose is a private and very personal choice, and should continue to remain that way. Women's decisions about their reproductive health--especially when it comes to something as personal as abortion--should between a woman, her family and her physician--not the U.S. Congress. I ask my colleagues to stand up for the privacy of women and oppose unwarranted interferences in their personal decisions. I also ask my colleagues to recognize that the vast majority of us in Congress have no medical training and are in no way qualified to choose among particular medical procedures. Doctors should be making medical determinations, not politicians. Vote no on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, there is a tragedy going on across our country every day in which parents are being forced to turn over custody of their severely emotionally disturbed children to state child welfare agencies or the juvenile justice system as their only means of obtaining desperately needed mental health services. These instances of child custody relinquishment happen when families are uninsured or have inadequate health insurance to pay for treatment of their child's illness. Because this nation's social safety net is not designed to help these families stay together, parents are being forced to turn their child over to the state in order to get the medical attention they so desperately need. The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' which Senator Collins, Senator Pryor, Representative Ramstad and Representative Kennedy, and I are introducing today will help end this barbaric practice of child custody relinquishment. The problem is widespread. In a report we requested, the U.S. General Accounting Office report found that parents placed over 12,700 children in 19 states and 30 counties into the child welfare system or juvenile justice system as their only means to assure that these children could receive vitally needed mental health services. The GAO report looked at a limited number of states and acknowledged that the number of families impacted nationwide is much higher. To add further credence to that finding, a recent survey conducted by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) found that 25% of parents of children with serious emotional disturbance reported being advised to relinquish custody of their child in order to access needed mental health services. According to another report by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the situations that cause parents and guardians to give up their seriously emotionally disturbed children to state agencies include the following: The family has either exhausted their private health insurance benefits or their benefits do not cover required mental health services (e.g. Residential Treatment Program). The family lives in a state or jurisdiction in which Medicaid services do not adequately address mental health needs and agency placement provides access or priority status for entry into needed care. The family lives in a state or jurisdiction in which children are deprived of federally mandated mental health services through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a result of an exceedingly restrictive definition of serious emotional illness. That is, these schools often label these children as solely ``discipline problems.'' The family lives in a state or jurisdiction in which the local child welfare system erroneously interprets federal law (Title IV-E of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program) as requiring relinquishment of custody even for temporary out-of-home placements. As all of these reports highlight, families are acting out of desperation to get immediately needed mental health services for their children. In essence, the juvenile justice and child welfare systems have become the mental health providers of last resort for far too many families. Both the child welfare system and juvenile justice systems are ill equipped to meet these children's needs. Even worse, the psychological bond between parent and child is unnecessarily disrupted. These children feel abandoned and their parents feel guilty over their parental rights and decision-making authority and to a state agency. The stigma is real--to families themselves and to those around them. Good parents don't have their children taken away. But, in fact, the need to relinquish custody in these instances doesn't have anything to do with parenting skills. It has everything to do with our system being broken and continuing to allow these children with significant mental health needs to fall through the cracks. We have known about this problem for many years. In fact, I first introduced legislation in 1995 attempting to address this issue. Since then I have been working with my colleagues to educate the public and other members of Congress about this issue and to find a bipartisan solution. Our legislation, the ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is the result of this bipartisan and bicameral process. Our bill provides new funding to states that are willing to develop systems that assure these children get the mental health services they need without pulling apart their families. It provides $55 million in new family support grants to states that are willing to end the practice of child custody relinquishment and cover all these children's mental health services under Medicaid, CHIP or any other health program of their choosing. These monies can then be used to improve access to mental health and family support services that keep families together. They can also be used to create statewide care coordination programs and to deliver mental health care and family support services for these families. Additionally, the bill establishes a federal interagency task force that is responsible for monitoring the family support grants and working with representatives of affected families to make recommendations to Congress to improve mental health services and to foster interagency cooperation in order to remove barriers that have caused child custody relinquishment. The task force is also required to provide biannual reports to Congress on its progress in improving the delivery of mental health services to seriously ill children. The bill also provides states with the option of moving children out of hospital-based psychiatric care and into home and community based care options, which will allow them to remain with their families. The Keeping Families Together Act is an important first step toward eliminating child custody relinquishment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this legislation so states can develop innovative new programs that address these children's mental health needs while keeping their families together. Once we've learned what has effectively worked at the state level to restructure these programs, we will need to return to this issue at the federal level and enact broad legislation to end the practice of forced child custody relinquishment nationwide.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to Undersheriff Curtis L. Watson for his thirty-three years of exemplary service in law enforcement. On October 17, 2003 Undersheriff Watson will be honored at the Hayward South Alameda County NAACP's Community Service Awards Banquet. Undersheriff Watson is a native of Little Rock, Arkansas, and prior to beginning his career in law enforcement, he served in the United States Air Force from 1966-1970. During the past thirty-three years with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, he has held a variety of positions. In July of 1980, he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and was assigned to the Santa Rita Jail and later to the Criminal Investigation Unit. In July of 1986, he was promoted to Lieutenant and assigned to the jail system before returning to the Criminal Division as a watch commander in Patrol. In January of 1990, Undersheriff Watson was promoted to Captain and became the commanding officer of the North County Jail in Oakland. From January 1993, until his appointment as Undersheriff, he served as the Administrative Captain to the Sheriff. On April 8, 1993, he was appointed to the position of Undersheriff for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff Watson received his BA degree in management from Saint Mary's College in Moraga, CA. He is currently a member of the California State Sheriff's Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and is a member of the Alameda County Women's Hall of Fame Planning Committee. We join the friends and colleagues of Undersheriff Watson in expressing congratulations as he is honored by the Hayward South Alameda County NAACP. We thank him for continued service to Alameda County.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Union City Police Department's CARE Program. CARE is the acronym for Citizens Aiding Residents and Elderly and is a division of the Union City Police Volunteer Program. Established in January 2003, CARE is a non-medical, volunteer, in- home visitation program for seniors, shut-ins and dependent adults living in Union City. CARE's four goals are to provide community resources that foster autonomy, independence and individuality, enhance quality of life, provide social and emotional support and provide security and confidence. CARE volunteers visit the most needy within the Union City community and are trained to recognize signs of elder abuse, malnutrition and other safety and sanitary issues that affect the well being of the CARE clients. The Union City Police Department has developed collaborative relationships with many organizations that provide CARE clients with necessary services, such as Meals-on-Wheels, Union City Fire Department, Transit Department, Leisure Services and the Senior Commission, Alameda County Injury Prevention Project, local hospitals, and the Alameda County Department on Aging. CARE is a unique program and is a first in the Bay Area initiated by law enforcement. I applaud the Union City Police Department for spearheading this valuable resource for its residents. I also pay tribute to the CARE volunteers whose commitment and devotion make a difference in Union City.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Teamsters Local 70's Centennial celebration on Saturday, September 27, 2003. For 100 years, the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto Truck Drivers, Line Drivers, Car Haulers and Helpers Local 70 of Alameda County has championed the rights of workers. Local 70 is headquartered in Oakland, California and has jurisdiction in Alameda County. It was first chartered October 1, 1903. Local 70 has thrived under the leadership of Chuck Mack. Mack was first elected Business Agent at Local 70 in 1966. He became Secretary- Treasurer in 1972. During his years of leadership, the Local has been recognized for its militancy and defense of its members. It has a reputation with unions and employers alike as one of the strongest, aggressive locals in the country. Mack, during his career, has chaired Joint Council 7 Freight negotiations. This Supplement is among the finest in the nation. He has also brought to his members in freight, solid waste disposal and UPS, a health and welfare program second to none. Perhaps his proudest accomplishment is obtaining pension benefits for workers. Mack has fought tooth and nail for early retirement. His efforts were instrumental in obtaining the ``80 and Out'' in the Western states. For 100 years, Local 70 has championed the rights of workers. Through collective bargaining, the Local continues to deliver to members and their families some of the best health and welfare and pension plans in the nation. Organizing is also a priority. Mack, the officials, and members of Local 70 have been on the street, at the terminal gates, bringing the benefits of Teamster membership to nonunion workers. Local 70 has been a force in the political arena with the goal of improving the conditions of all workers through legislation and activism. Local 70's presence has been felt in the community. Whether it is youth activities, food banks or helping other unions, the Local's rank and file as well as their officers and officials are quick to volunteer. They represent Local 70 with pride. I extend heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Local 70 for 100 years of service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act, a bill to ensure that Direct-To- Consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads provide complete and accurate information about prescription drugs. The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by the Republicans in the House does nothing to control drug pricing. In fact, their bill explicitly prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers to get a better deal on prescription drug prices for seniors. I believe Congress must do something about the high costs of prescription drugs, for Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans. That's why I'm introducing this legislation. The Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act will empower the FDA to determine whether pharmaceutical companies present information about their products in a fair manner, balancing risks and benefits. Any advertisements found to violate this standard would be denied currently allowed tax deductions. Under this bill, print ads would be required to display pros and cons in equal typeface and space, and on the same or facing pages. If the advertisements ran onto additional pages, those pages would have to be consecutive with the first pages. In television and radio ads, risk and benefit descriptions would be allotted equal airtime and volume level. Since the FDA relaxed restrictions on television advertising in 1997, DTC advertising has soared. Drug companies' advertising expenditure doubled between 1998 and 2000, and is expected to reach seven billion dollars annually by 2005. As a consequence of such large-scale advertising, consumers have been led to demand drugs that may not be medically necessary or appropriate for their conditions. According to the National Institute for Health Care Management, 86% of patients who requested a prescription for Clarion from their doctor received one (this drug is now available over-the-counter). Similarly, a 2000 study showed that nearly half of the increased spending on pharmaceuticals was attributable to the fifty most advertised prescription drugs, and also that DTC advertising has increased the prices of prescriptions. DTC advertising not only drives up the costs of prescriptions, but also increases demand for more expensive drugs in cases when a cheaper alternative will do. The cost of prescription drugs is heavily impacting our country. We all know the problems facing seniors and their ability to afford their medications. States are finding the costs of providing comprehensive drug benefits so expensive that Illinois has announced that they will contract with a Canadian pharmacy to get a better deal for their state employees. Employers are facing similar dilemmas. Given this cost crisis, we need to take every step we can to reduce increasing drug costs. That's why making sure that advertisements aid consumers in making informed decisions, rather than simply increasing demand for the newest drug, makes so much sense. The Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act is endorsed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which provides health benefits to more than 1.3 million members. They know far too well the difficulties facing consumers and employers due to increasing drug prices. Their President, Sean Harrigan, says, ``Representative Stark's bill is the best medicine for reining in the costs of drugs while ensuring consumers get the real truth about the benefits and the risks of direct-to-consumer advertised drugs.'' The new guidelines this bill sets forth will help the pharmaceutical industry educate consumers by enabling them to make informed decisions based on a fair and balanced presentation of risks and benefits. Today's DTC ads simply don't meet that standard. One advertising executive with significant experience with DTC ads said, ``we want to identify the emotions we can tap into to get that customer to take the desired course of action.'' That's not a decision based on facts. In a survey of 1,872 people who viewed drug advertisements, 70 percent said they had learned little or nothing more about the conditions the drug is supposed to treat, and over half said they learned little or nothing more about the drug being advertised. Very few ads informed viewers of how successful the treatment is, what alternative treatments are available, how long a patient needs to take the drug, or attempt to correct common misconceptions about the disease the drug treats. Predictably, a strong majority of doctors--75 percent--said that the ads caused patients to think that advertised drugs work better than they do. Physicians themselves have voiced their frustration with the way DTC ads have harmed their ability to provide the best medical care to their patients. In fact, the American Medical Association has asked the FDA to require pharmaceutical companies to include a disclaimer in all ads stating that physicians may suggest other alternative, medically appropriate treatments. The bill I am introducing today is simple. It would eliminate the tax deduction for ads that do not fairly present the risks and benefits of prescription drugs. Only ads that truly and honestly provide balanced information that enables consumers to make informed, educated decisions would continue to qualify for a business tax deduction. Since the pharmaceutical industry already argues that their ads educate consumers, they should have nothing to fear by this bill. This bill will provide an incentive for advertising to provide education rather than blatant promotional material that spurs patients to demand drugs that may be medically inappropriate for their condition and drive up costs. This is a bill we should be able to support on a broad bipartisan basis. We should pass it immediately and take a concrete step to reduce prescription drug price increases for America's consumers now. The American public is sick of rhetoric on prescription drug price. They want action. Join me in support of the Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the author of our proposed Democratic substitute, who can speak to the issue of how we might pay for this bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. STARK. So that was over 10?

Mr. STARK. So that would be about 200 million a year that you are short. I wondered if the gentlewoman was aware that in this bill there is $61 million for the State of Washington and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Corporation to do a kind of experiment in how to save trees by cutting them down, and none of the other States were allowed to participate in this, including New York State where they have major timber and pulp. So all through this bill there are special little interests gifts. Think of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Corporation and how badly they need an extra $61 million as compared to the people of 9/11.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, how much was the New York delegation asking, does the gentlewoman recall, for the help of the 9/ 11 victims?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address not just this bill but all the things that the bill either ignores or demeans by suggesting that these charitable acts will solve some of the major problems in our country. The bill suggests that it is going to spend $13 billion, when any reasonable assessment would suggest that it is a $23-billion bill because it sunsets the tax deduction in the second year, and we know that as night follows day, the next request will be to make it permanent, and I think it is rather deceptive to suggest to the public that it is, in fact, 13 when it is arguably substantially more, if one believes that the bill does the right thing to begin with. The bill ought to be noted for what it does not do. What it does not do is deal with 12 million children whose parents will not receive a tax credit, which the President supports, the other body supports, and for some reason, my Republican colleagues in this House feel that because their parents pay little or no income tax, while they may pay substantial payroll taxes, they ought not to receive this money. So many of the parents who are such low income, including the parents of 250,000 or more children who are children of our brave troops who will not receive this money, many of those same families will be importuned and given $6 a month in tax deduction for contributing to various causes. One imagines the United Crusade or whatever. Many of us suspect that that will not generate very much charitable giving, and it would seem to me to be much more direct to deal with tax credits for families under $25,000 a year who have children to raise wherein health care is limited, wherein there is no help for housing or clothing or school subsidies which we have talked about on this floor. So, again, this bill is notable for what it does not do. Then it has a certain amount of arrogance in what it does do. For example, it is almost cute, there is a college housing project, as it is called, in this bill, and what that basically does is help Delta Kappa Epsilon and Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Kappa Alpha. It is a gift to fraternity and sorority houses on college campuses. Now, I have no quarrel with fraternities and sororities; but they are, indeed, private social clubs; and it seems to me that we are taking the first step in giving taxpayer dollars to private clubs that have every right to restrict their membership by race, by religion, by ethnicity, or any other reason. And there is no quarrel, but we have never before in the history of our Tax Code of our country given taxpayer dollars to golf clubs or tennis clubs or any other types of clubs. And then we are going to go and have an experiment, and this is an experiment for a very limited group of Americans. We are going to give $61 million to create experiments to show that by cutting down trees we are going to save trees. Now that may work, but if it works, it is only going to work in the State of Washington because the $61 million in experiments cannot be used in any one of the other 49 States. I noticed that the two distinguished sponsors of this bill are from Tennessee. To my knowledge, there is a timber industry in Tennessee. What is so shabby about the timber industry in Tennessee that we cannot help them do an experiment in ecological management of our forests? There happens to be a timber industry in California where the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means resides. Why would we not like to help preserve the redwoods in California with some of this money, or the State of Oregon or the State of Maine? Why is it that only one State gets to participate in this experiment? And I might add it adds up to one timber company, the Weyerhaeuser timber company, which is owned by a very rich family, so we maybe could say it is only one family that participates. That is not right. It is not the proper thing to do. If these programs are good, in every other experiment, we let people apply and we try and award these not as pork and a reward to some individual politician, but we try to reward them to the program which shows they have the most potential for benefiting the most Americans. That is the way a democracy ought to work; and in this new administration which tends to interpret democracy any way that the Attorney General chooses on that particular day, we seem to be redefining in this bill how we should apply charity and what are charitable organizations, how we should apply the largess of the Federal Government with rifle-shot approaches to individual corporations. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is fraught with help for individual companies and individual interests; and it is most notable, as I would like to repeat once again, for what it does not do. It does not help those 12 million children in low-income families who most need assistance and which this House has repeatedly turned its back on due to the Republican leadership's refusal to bring up the child tax credit extension. So it is with heavy heart, Mr. Speaker, that I say that charitable giving here has been politicized to the extent that under the guise of helping low-income people with $6 a month, we are giving humongous rewards to fraternities and sororities, to the Weyerhaeuser timber company in the State of Washington, and to people who arguably do not need that charity today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you the inspirational message of a perceptive eighth grader, Tess Spinola, winner of the Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary (DAVA) annual State Essay Contest. The contest, which began in 1948, was held throughout the East Bay Area of San Francisco. This year's question was ``What does Americanism mean to me?'' Tess attends St. Joseph's Elementary School in Alameda, CA in my district. Founded on March 5, 1947, the Oakland Unit (#7) Auxiliary of DAVA brought together wives, sisters, daughters and mothers of those injured or disabled during wartime. The group of women decided at that time to dedicate their efforts to give back to the nation in a variety of ways. They work with local youth to bring more of America's young people to community service. Not all their work is purely organization, of course. DAVA created 100 baby quilts and gave them to nearby Highland Hospital, along with hand-made wheelchair bags and lap ropes for veterans. A few women in the Oakland Unit put on a party for people with Alzheimer's disease; others chair an Olympics for those with disabilities. In the words of Eva Mae Perakis, past state commander, ``Our main purpose is to stimulate patriotism in the country and bring joy and awareness to the community.'' Ms. Perakis described the essay contest as ``overwhelmingly heart- warming.'' She said she receives letters from students who said it enriched their young lives to study and learn about veterans. ``They realize they didn't really appreciate those freedoms they took for granted,'' she noted. Ms. Perakis also noted that the essays have ``touched a few adult hearts as well.'' ``The contest causes our children to think and investigate inside themselves,'' Ms. Perakis said. ``It's good for their minds. We're just trying to make our young students aware of what freedom really means. We hope they get that awareness as they write.'' Mr. Speaker, we all know that our children represent the future, and that someday they will be running this great country of ours. But, their impact frequently comes much before their maturation to adulthood. As any parent can tell you, today's youth has a knack for giving us adults a few important lessons. Tess Spinola's essay does just that. What Does Americanism Mean To Me? (By Tess Spinola) Americanism is such a powerful word with so many meanings. It is the equivalent of struggles, worries, doubts and fears, that all led, eventually, to astounding triumphs that define who we are, and the country we live in. It is the feeling of freedom as we lay our hands over our hearts and pledge to the flag; a flag that symbolizes the blood, sweat, and tears of Americans in the past, present and future; it is the pride and patriotism that only an American can truly understand. Most importantly, Americanism means something different for each of us. Americanism means Victory to me; it means the success in the quest for independence by the Colonist in the Revolutionary War, symbolizing that America and its citizens are people that will fight to the end, and will prevail in the darkest of situations. Americanism, to me, also means Freedom. It is the heart and passion of the Northern states in the Civil War, fighting for four years for the freedom of their African American brothers and sisters. It means Unity to me, because when joined together as one, we are unstoppable. More recently, and for the first time, Americanism means Compassion for me. It is the New York fire fighters, encased in the ash, smoke, fire and despair, as the Trade Centers were minutes from crumbling to the ground. It is the moments that they climbed up those smoky stairs, risking their lives just for the hope that they could save the life of another. It is the way that Americans have shaken off the September 11th attacks and helped each other recuperate; turning defeat into a lesson we will learn from and grow because of for the rest of our lives. Americanism is a word and a meaning shared throughout our country, by everyone, yet it is also something very personal for me. When I walk into my Catholic Church, and I am able to take Communion, and have a relationship with God in my own way, I know what Americanism means. When I leave the Basilica that day, and go to friend's house that is a Jew, or a Baptist, or one that has no religion at all, I know what Americanism means. When I am allowed to enjoy the Diversity surrounding me everywhere I go, and love all people I meet as my equal, Americanism has its most profound meaning for me. To be an American is to be a person of God, accepting, acknowledging, respecting and loving all people. It is what we have fought through, what we have strived for, what we are still fighting for in many ways, and what we have the chance to live everyday of our lives. Yet, Americanism, like anything, also means Change and Growth. Not only do we acknowledge that we need to change and grow in many ways, but we strive toward it everyday of our lives. We look forward to once again realizing our faults, defeating them, and growing because of them. Americanism is not represented for me through the war we may be going into with Iraq; in fact the war is America turning its back on everything we stand for. But it does mean to me the hundreds of people lining up to protest the war in San Francisco. These people know what Americanism means; freedom and right to protest, which is something that seems like such a basic right, but in reality, was fought for and earned by our founding fathers. These people are living out what we have fought for throughout our country's entire history, and when I see them on the front page newspaper, I know why I am proud to be an American. In short, Americanism means Victory, Freedom, Unity, Compassion, Diversity, Change, and Growth. It is the triumph and the pride in the tears that run down the cheeks of America's citizens as they hold their hands to their hearts and ponder for what seems like the first time, every time, the meaning of their National Anthem. It is alive in each and every one of us, and we must strive to be a real American everyday; the sum of what we have fought for, and what we have learned. As I watch people of all races, nationalities, religions and histories live together as equals, as I gaze at our flag, waving in the cool air of a young sunny day, as I observe the sparks of fireworks on the Fourth of July, bursting triumphantly and fluttering back to the ground in a glowing sparkle, I know what Americanism means to me. What does it mean to you?

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this unpatriotic and anti-democratic District of Columbia appropriations bill (H.R. 2765), and in favor of Delegate Norton's amendment to remove the school voucher program. As the former Chairman for the Committee for the District of Columbia, I am disappointed that Republican Members are again carrying out their annual assault to force their extremist right wing policies on the District of Columbia--policies that are so extreme that they are unable to implement them nationwide. I would like to remind the sponsors of this bill that the citizens of the District of Columbia do not want a school voucher program. That is why their elected representative, Delegate Norton, is offering her amendment to strike this program today. I guess representative democracy is okay for the citizens of Iraq, but not for the citizens of our Nation's capital. School vouchers do not solve the problems confronting our public schools. At best, private schools can only accommodate a small portion of students' educational needs in the District of Columbia. Nor will private schools--even with limited government financial assistance-- ever be affordable to most families. It's simple, if enacted, this voucher program will mean fewer resources for the District's public schools. The $10 million for vouchers today would be far better used to improve the District of Columbia public school system, helping all children in our Nation's capital--not just a privileged few. The Republicans have not stopped at subverting democracy in the District of Columbia with their school voucher program. They are also prohibiting the city from implementing a locally approved ballot initiative to allow the medical use of marijuana by DC residents suffering debilitating health conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection. In addition, the Republican bill maintains the current prohibition on the use of Federal or local funds for needle exchange programs in the District. Finally, the Republican bill prohibits the District from using Federal or local funds for abortions, except to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest. Like their foreign policy, the Republicans only support democracy in this country when it suits their extremist right wing ideology. The District of Columbia has an elected government that should be able to determine the laws for its residents--just like every state in our Nation determines its own laws. It is past time for Congress to respect the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia and uphold democratic principles that this country was built upon. I urge my colleagues to join me--and support democracy--by voting against the District of Columbia appropriations bill.