Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eden Housing, Inc. of Hayward, California on the occasion of its thirty-fifth anniversary. Eden Housing, Inc. was founded in 1968 by a group of dedicated individuals who were concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Alameda County. The original board members developed Eden's first affordable development, the 150-unit Josephine Lum Lodge for seniors in Hayward, California. Since starting its first project nearly 35 years ago, Eden Housing has created 4,200 units of affordable housing for low income families, seniors and persons with disabilities, and has become one of the most active non-profit affordable housing developers in California. As it has grown, the organization has expanded its development activities into six Northern California counties. From its small but ambitious beginning, Eden, and its two major affiliates, Eden Housing Management, Inc. and nonprofit Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. now employ a combined professional staff of 120 employees. The organization is guided by an eleven member volunteer board of directors from a wide spectrum of professional fields. In addition to meeting the needs for affordable shelter, Eden Housing is committed to helping its residents improve their lives through free onsite supportive services and programs provided by Eden's nonprofit affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. These services include children's summer and after-school programs, scholarships for deserving adults, senior health and fitness programs, onsite service coordination, and computer learning programs where children learn skills to help them succeed in school, and adults acquire skills to help them compete for better employment opportunities. Throughout its history, Eden Housing has made it a priority to mentor and partner with smaller non-profit organizations to build their capacity while providing housing to serve special populations or geographic communities. Included in Eden's collaborations are a 100- unit senior apartment complex, developed with East Bay Issei, a coalition of Japanese American groups concerned with creating housing for their senior constituents; multiple partnerships with Community Resources for Independent Living and the Mentally Handicapped Children's Organization to create developments for persons with disabilities; and a collaboration with East Bay Habitat for Humanity to build homes in Fremont for first-time buyers. In its thirty-fifth year, Eden Housing is celebrating the future, as well as the past. Eden Housing, Inc. is breaking ground on new developments and opening others. The organization is conducting feasibility studies for additional units and continues to search out new opportunities, all of which support Eden Housing's commitment to provide affordable housing in Northern California well into the future. Congratulations Eden Housing, Inc. I applaud your dedication and exemplary contributions.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Logan High School forensics team, and their coach Tommie Lindsey. Recently, thirteen students from Logan High competed in the National Forensic League tournament in Atlanta, where five team members went twelve out of the thirteen rounds. One team member completed all thirteen rounds, winning the championship, and a $6,000 scholarship. Logan is one of only five schools that received the School of Excellence Award--and the only one from California--from a field that included 1,000 schools. Coach Tommie Lindsey's successful coaching style was the subject of a PBS Documentary last year called ``Accidental Hero: Room 408.'' Students are back in Room 408 at Logan, where Lindsey is preparing them for the coming year in a summer-school program that includes 156 of the 240 students who make up the forensics team. Room 408 is filled with dozens of certificates of merit and stacked high to the ceiling with trophies. Four Logan students have won national forensics championships in the past 15 years, and 20 other students have reached the semifinal round of the competition. But those aren't the statistics Lindsey is most proud of. This year, 27 or the 28 graduating seniors on the forensic team are going to four-year colleges and the other one is going to junior college, according to Lindsey. In a school where, Lindsey said, about 40 percent of the graduates go on to college, the numbers of the forensics team speaks volumes. Lindsey has been coaching forensics for 27 years, and at Logan since 1989. He is the director of forensics and a teacher, but to his students, he is much more. According to them, they benefit from his coaching and beyond. He advises students on how to perform, how to maintain their concentration during a performance, how to dress and how to treat competitors, He also encourages them to volunteer in the community, such as their recent work with elementary school students. It is with pride and honor that I commend the Logan High School Forensics Team and Tommie Lindsey for their community involvement, their passion to succeed, and continued commitment to excellence.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have a couple of letters, one from the AFL-CIO which suggests that this legislation would establish an enormous tax shelter for wealthy individuals and at the same time undermine employer-based health coverage and shift costs onto workers. I have a letter from Families USA which, among other things, says that this bill also threatens the employer-provided health insurance system particularly among smaller employers who will be able to take deductions in the top brackets and who will then no longer be interested in providing coverage for their employees. Mr. Speaker, I include both letters for the Record. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, June 26, 2003. Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO opposes H.R. 2351, the Health Savings Account Availability Act. This legislation would establish an enormous tax shelter for wealthy individuals and at the same time undermine employer-based health coverage and shift more cost onto workers. Despite proponents' claims, this bill would fail to expand coverage to the uninsured and would be especially harmful to those low-income, older and sicker workers who now have comprehensive coverage. Under H.R. 2351, employers could offer Health Savings Accounts as long as they are provided in conjunction with high-deductible health insurance policies, defined as at least $500 for an individual policy and $1,000 for a family plan. This will encourage employers to abandon more generous coverage and offer instead less comprehensive policies that shift significant costs onto workers. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that 30 million such accounts would be established by 2013 and the majority of employers would modify their health plans to meet the high-deductible guidelines of the legislation. In addition, this shift in coverage would harm most those workers who need health care. Low-income workers who are the intended beneficiaries of these plans' preferred tax treatment are not likely to get back enough in taxes to offset the greater out-of-pocket costs they are likely to incur with these high-deductible plans. Furthermore, those workers and other insured individuals who have traditional, more comprehensive coverage will see their premiums rise. Younger, healthier workers will likely choose the less-comprehensive coverage, leaving older and sicker workers and those who earn too little to pay taxes in traditional coverage. As a result, costs for this coverage will rise, leaving workers with no choice but to enroll in the high-deductible coverage this bill seeks to promote. This legislation was slipped through the Ways and Means committee last week, and made worst late last night in the Rules Committee. Among the changes made in Rules, the income threshold has been raised to $175,000 for joint filers. The cost of the revised bill is estimated to be $174 over ten years--more than twice the estimated cost of the bill that passed Ways and Means last week--and makes clear that this legislation is first and foremost another tax shelter, not a bill to cover the uninsured. H.R. 2351 was raised just last week with little notice and certainly without any hearings, despite the bill's far- reaching implications and significant cost. And now the House leadership has called for it to be joined with the Medicare prescription drug legislation before the House. I urge you to vote against H.R. 2351. Sincerely, William Samuel, Director, Department of Legislation.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who realizes that with this $176 billion we could insure every one of the 9 million uninsured children in this country. (Mr. McDERMOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time and will use it to sum up because that is about all the time it will take to explain what is in the Republican bill, which is nothing. It privatizes Medicare, and it promises a benefit as good as we Members of Congress get, and it does not get a third of the way there. It is a hoax. It is phony. It is a fig leaf. It only gives coverage to the Republicans because there is nothing, absolutely nothing in this bill that requires anybody to provide a drug benefit to the seniors, and perhaps they will give the Republicans enough campaign money or promises and favors of other sorts to get them to change this in the future; but right now, sexual favors will not do it, nothing will do it. We are not giving the seniors anything but a hoax.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, unlike the authors of this bill, did not spend his entire life in the public trough but actually worked in private enterprise; so he understands what privatization is.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands that the Republican bill does not extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund at all. In fact, it probably reduces it some.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman could explain the gap, but obviously he cannot. So I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know where to begin to warn the seniors in this country about this sham of a bill and the beginning of the destruction of Medicare, as the Republicans have wanted to do for a number of years. There is no question that this is a major move toward privatizing Medicare. By the calculations that we have from the last feeble attempt to do this, of course Health and Human Services refuses to give us the most recent actuarial computations, but using the last ones, the Medicare premium for B in this drug benefit would rise to $142 a month if the premium could hold at $35. By 2010, all Medicare will be privatized and immediately there will be a means test, the first time ever, an attempt to turn a government program into a welfare program, and the interesting thing is that every senior's income data will be turned over to any insurance company in the United States that requests it. So seniors, so much for their privacy. Every one of those people that calls on the phone to sell you some hokey insurance is going to have complete data on your income courtesy of the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, the sad part even further is that the Republicans would like to turn this over to private companies to operate it, and it is very interesting that one of the largest and best known private companies, Medco, a subsidiary of Merck was just indicted, or as they say, essentially indicted, by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia for a series of crimes committed on our Federal employees' health insurance benefits. This company that the Republicans would turn the management of this drug benefit over to was indicted for canceling, deleting and destroying patients mail order prescriptions to avoid penalties for late filing and mailing; shortchanging patients on the number of pills paid for; making false statements to the insurance plan they were contracted with about compliance with mailing timelines; calling and inducing physicians to authorize switching to higher cost medications while representing that this would save money for the insurance company, which was untrue; fabricating records of calls by pharmacists to physicians, and the list goes on. This is the type of company who supports the Republicans, and they in turn are paying back that favor by offering Medco and Merck and their ilk the opportunity to provide a so-called benefit to seniors. I say so-called benefit because the next cruel hoax in this bill is there is no benefit defined in the bill. Nowhere in the bill does it define a premium, nowhere in the bill does it define a copay, and nowhere in the bill does it define a benefit. Now, we can all do some math and the CBO actuaries tell us that the actuarial value of a suggested benefit might be $1,360. It is important to add that our actuarial benefit for our health employees' benefit plan is probably closer to $3,000, but there is nothing that states in this law that the U.S. Government shall create, provide, or require a benefit of any type. In other words, if the insurance companies cannot be induced or bribed into offering a benefit, there will not be any. This is a nothing bill. It does not provide a benefit. Now, I guess perhaps Members may not want to just take my word for it, so I think it is important to note what many others might say about the bill. Mr. Speaker, the Arizona Daily Star says that ``the Democratic bill is better in every respect,'' and that the House drug bill is ``awful'' and ``repulsive.'' The Chicago Tribune says the Medicare debate ``has more to do with campaign 2004 than providing a prescription drug benefit.'' The Long Island Newsday said that ``the proposals racing through the House are a mess. Unless they improve dramatically en route to passage, doing nothing would be better than enacting such flawed laws.'' The Evansville Courier & Press says the ``ridiculously complex Medicare reform now being considered by Congress may be one of the more irresponsible measures in the long history of cradle-to-grave legislation.'' The Akron Beacon Journal says that while the Medicare reform bills would address the lack of drug coverage in Medicare, beneficiaries might be ``no better off with the benefit than they are at present'' because ``on the key issues of affordability, the structure of premiums, deductibles and copayments, both versions follow an elaborate path to disappointment.'' The list goes on. In North Carolina, the Raleigh News Observer says the bill's actual benefit does not begin to outweigh the drawbacks of its so-called reforms. The Roanoke Times and World News says even if the drug bill passes, seniors still will have to fear the possibility they will face crushing drug bills. In Kansas, the Windfield Courier says the doughnut hole ``hurts many seniors when they need the help the most.'' ``The majority Republicans are at risk of passing a Medicare bill that looks, walks and talks like a political campaign creature.'' Washington State, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says what Congress finally sends to the White House will surely be a disappointment. The Oregonian says it is difficult to see the congressional proposals for Medicare drug coverage as much more than a big letdown. They are thin in coverage and convoluted in delivery. Mr. Speaker, I think we can sum this all up, people will say this is drug coverage for old folks. The truth is this bill is nothing but political coverage for the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who understands that seniors are going to have to pay 4,000 bucks for the first $5,000 of drugs regardless.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, how short memories are. It was just an hour ago that we threw away $174 billion on useless medical savings accounts and over the last year or two we gave $800 billion in inheritance tax relief to an average of 10,000 people a year so we could punish a hundred million people a year by destroying their Medicare. They just do not remember. But the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Neal) remembers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). The gentleman from Maryland understands that with proponents like Thomas and Johnson, the seniors do not need any scaring from us.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know earlier I moved the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to talk about his poverty and I wanted to join him in that. I too was raised poor. I was raised so poor that I never slept alone until I was married. I want to go on and suggest that I am not going to let you have that field all to yourself. We have introduced a substitute. Unlike your bill, ours has specific benefits. Your bill, I would remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut, has no benefit in it. It is all estimates. It is all examples. There is no benefit in your bill, and indeed in our substitute there is. You have heard it. It is simple. It is $25 a month, 20 percent coinsurance, no gaps; and we pay out of pocket after $2,000. Yes, you will say it costs a lot of money. The gentlewoman from Connecticut forgets about the $5.6 trillion surplus that Bush had when he came into office and which he squandered on tax cuts in the meantime. But we do have an income transfer as we have been accused of. It is very simple. You can look at it this way. You have given $800 billion to 10,000 of the richest families each year when you did away with the inheritance tax. No question about it. That is what it costs. Those are the beneficiaries. We would take that money as an alternative and give it to what will be in a short 10 years 100 million seniors. What you have given away to the richest seniors in this country would more than pay for a drug benefit of the magnitude that we offer, a standard Medicare drug benefit, and I suggest that that is a transfer worth making and that that defines the difference between us. You give $800 billion to 10,000 families a year, the richest in America. We would give that $800 billion to 100 million seniors who needed a drug benefit that they can define, depend on and understand, and that is why the Members should support the Democratic substitute. It is defined. It is real. It solves the problem for seniors, and it is, I think, one of the highest priorities that this House has. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have the same letter, and it says nothing about employers dropping coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who understands that spending money to provide a decent drug benefit for seniors is not wasting money.