Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

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 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 to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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 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 myself such time as I may consume, because I do not intend to let unsubstantiated remarks go unchallenged either. We do not oppose this bill because of what is in it, because there is nothing in it. There are no benefits in it. There is nothing in the bill except to spend money to get private insurance companies, if they decide to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who recognizes that.

Mr. STARK

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who understands that we could cover the parents of low-income children who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP with the same amount of money.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, just to straighten out some of the figures, the Republicans do indeed add $26.7 billion for rural providers. We add $39.1 billion for rural providers. That is $2.5 billion more, and I would hope that the Republicans are not lying to the seniors. You can lie to us because we are used to it. The White House has set the tone for that. But do not lie to the seniors. There is nothing in your bill. I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), there is nothing in your bill that guarantees anything, and to say that to the seniors is lying to them. There is nothing in your bill that guarantees a thing to the seniors and you know it. And if you do not know it, read it again. Otherwise, you are lying to the seniors. Our bill provides a Medicare benefit which is definable. Yours does not. You do not require any benefits if no insurance company steps up to the plate and there is nothing that requires it. There is not one line in your bill that requires an insurance company to provide anything. So it is all a fantasy. At least we are requiring the government to provide a benefit to the seniors in the same manner they are now familiar, under Medicare with a determined premium, a determined deductible, determined benefits, the same across the country. None of that is available through the Republican bill. To tell the seniors otherwise is lying. You have lied to us tonight and stop lying to the seniors. So support our substitute and vote down the great Republican lie.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise concerns with House Resolution 294, Condemning The Terrorism Inflicted On Israel And Expressing Solidarity With The Israeli People. I am greatly troubled by the violence between Palestinians and Israelis over the last two weeks. It poses a great threat to the road map toward peace before it has had a chance to progress. I am outraged by extremists on both sides who continue to frustrate and delay the peace process. For the sake of the Israeli and Palestinian people, this process must be allowed to succeed. While I join my colleagues in denouncing all acts of terrorism, this resolution unfairly places blame on one side in the ongoing cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States should always act as a fair and impartial broker in the peace process. This resolution violates that responsibility. Let me be clear. I condemn the recent bus bombings and other acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas just as I believe Israel must halt its policy of assassinations. The day after Israel attempted to kill a senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed seventeen innocent people aboard a bus in Jerusalem. The cycle of violence being perpetuated by both sides must end, but this resolution does nothing constructive to further that goal. It is only right that Congress call upon the new government of Prime Minister Abbas to take more effective measures in controlling Hamas and ending violence. But we should also ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon to do the same. We should sponsor impartial legislation supporting continued dialogue to end the violence in the Middle East--protecting the human rights of the innocent involved in the cross fire. We must balance our demands on both of these governments. Both sides have crossed the line--it is time to get back to the negotiating table. We are not aiding this already volatile situation by giving our weighted support to one side in this conflict. For that reason, I must abstain on this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 660, the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003.'' This bill is badly misnamed. Rather than make the cost of health insurance for small businesses more fair, this bill would have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of health insurance for many people and increase the number of people without health insurance altogether. This bill would allow these new entities, called Association Health Plans (AHPs), to bypass State regulation and offer bare-bones health insurance policies. Small businesses that don't choose to offer these inadequate policies would see their premiums increase by 23 percent on average. This premium hike would occur because AHPs, which would offer only skeletal coverage, would attract the healthiest individuals, leaving traditional health insurance plans with the sickest and most expensive patients. This shift would penalize businesses with sicker employees, and make health insurance for those who need it the most even more unaffordable. Further, this legislation would swell the ranks of the uninsured by over one million more individuals. As traditional health insurance becomes increasingly expensive, more and more businesses would have no choice but to drop health insurance for their employees, leaving these individuals with little or no opportunity to purchase health coverage. Contrary to what proponents of this bill claim, AHPs would not truly help small businesses purchase health insurance for their employees. Although proponents claim that AHPs would give small-employers bargaining power to purchase affordable health insurance, most States already have laws in place that allow for group purchasing arrangements. This bill would only harm existing laws while usurping the traditional role of States to regulate insurance. In fact, this bill would override key State laws and regulations that protect millions of Americans. For example, many States regulate insurance premiums to prevent insurers from discriminating against the ill. But under this bill those laws wouldn't apply. AHPs would be allowed to offer extremely-low ``teaser'' rates, and then rapidly increase the premium if the enrollee becomes sick. Furthermore, nearly all States have enacted external review laws which guarantee patients an independent doctor review if a health plan denies them coverage for a particular service. Patients who join AHPs would lose this vitally important consumer protection. This bill also exempts AHPs from State laws that require health insurance to cover particular benefits. These laws have helped to ensure that millions of Americans get access to the healthcare that they need--such as mammography screenings, maternity care, well-child care, and prompt payment rules. In my State, California, employees who join AHPs could well lose access to these services as well as certain emergency services, direct access to OB/GYNs, mental health parity, and other important benefits. Moreover, this law would allow health plans to ``gag'' doctors, the currently illegal practice of health insurers preventing doctors from discussing treatment options that the plan does not cover, even if some of those options are in the patient's best medical interest. The problems go on. AHPs are likely to create new fraud and abuse problems in health care as well. These plans are very similar to Multiple Employer Welfare Plans (MEWAs) which Congress created in the 1970s. MEWAs were also exempt from State insurance regulation. The Department of Labor found that many of these plans were frauds and left their enrollees holding the bag for more than $123 million in unpaid health expenses. Congress had to come back and clean up the law to end this blatant abuse. We should learn from that mistake--not repeat it! This bill is bad for patients, bad for small business, and bad for States. It is opposed by over 500 organizations--including both the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations, local Chambers of Commerce, small business associations, physician organizations, labor unions, and healthcare coalitions. H.R. 660 would increase premiums, increase the number of uninsured, lead to massive fraud, and remove key State protections. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until just before the gentlewoman closes.

Mr. STARK. The estate on which they paid $185,000 in tax, how much was the farm worth?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There are two issues with this bill. One is fairness. And the other is lost opportunity. Let me give the Members a hypothetical. Let us take a young man, young woman, who started out after school and never worked anyplace but for the Government, and suddenly early in their youth in their career as a Government worker, they are going to inherit $40 million. They never had a job outside of public service in their lives. And they might pay $20 million in tax, be left with $20 million, to which they contributed nothing but it is nice to get. The question of fairness is why should my children, who went to school and worked hard to become lawyers and teachers and contribute to society, why should they have to pay the $20 million for this kid who is going to inherit the $40 million? That is not fair. They are not asking for a handout. They are probably grumping at their father for fighting against this bill, but they are content. They have got a leg up. They got to go to school, and now they are making their own way. And if, when I pass away, they have to pay some tax, they are going to be proud to do it, and they are proud of me for suggesting that they pay their fair share instead of asking me to give them a free ride. That is the fairness issue. The lost opportunity is this: For those of us who are wealthy enough to pay the tax, my good friend from New York I think senses this. This bill is going to cost 60 billion bucks a year. We just got a release from the Institute of Medicine that shows that with the 41 million uninsured in this country, for about $69 billion a year we could provide them with health services. Do my colleagues know what? That would save us another $130 billion a year that we are paying in lost costs by having them go to hospitals without insurance. What is more important? To give a few thousand rich kids an exemption from paying their fair share and denying 40 million people health care in this country? That is the issue. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, we are talking about separating the rich and the poor. But I think those of us who are fortunate enough to be successful in this country ought to give something back and ought to help those who are less fortunate, and I just think it is crummy, it is anti-Christian, it is cheap, it is obscene to sit and say we have got ours, we are going to give tax breaks to our wealthiest contributors and to hell with the people who do not have health insurance. That is what the Republicans are saying with this bill, and I urge them late in life to come to do what is fair, to help 40 million Americans get health insurance rather than 4,000 get a tax break that will do none of us any good. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, with his brother, understands that hard work and education can lead to a successful career without inheriting a lot of money. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) if he would be willing to engage with me for a moment. The two constituents mentioned, would they not have been covered under the Pomeroy amendment?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. STARK. Reclaiming my time, so it would be covered by the Pomeroy amendment. I just suggest that many of these horror stories of people who are quite fortunate would be covered under the Pomeroy amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka). (Mr. KLECZKA 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 New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).