Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to re-introduce the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act. A few years ago many of my constituents were placed into a special flood hazard area, indicated by FEMA's Flood Rate Maps, that requires them to purchase flood insurance that can cost over $1,000 per year. These residents were not notified that they would be required to purchase flood insurance until 2 months or less before the maps became effective, even though the law is supposed to give them six months notice and ample time to purchase flood insurance. Needless to say, this took many of my constituents by surprise when they were required to purchase costly insurance at a moments notice, having not seen flooding in decades or even a lifetime. Several residents who did not believe they were in the flood zone hired surveyors at their own expense, and many residents continue to hire surveyors. The private surveyors' data has resulted in removal of homes from the special flood hazard area, thus removing them from their obligation to purchase flood insurance. In the long run, while these residents are not required to purchase flood insurance, they have spent over $200 each for surveyor costs. Unfortunately, this cost burden is the responsibility of the property owner. They were told by FEMA that under current law property owners who challenge the presumed flood classification are responsible for the surveyor expense even though the incorrect classification is no fault of their own. Clearly, the National Flood Insurance Program needs to be revised to give homeowners more notice, due process, and financial protection when they succeed in removing their property from the base flood elevation classification. That is why I am proposing the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act The National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act does the following: The bill improves the existing program by requiring the FEMA Director to notify by registered mail the Chief Executive Officer of each community affected by the changes in Flood Insurance Rate Maps, rather than by first class mail as is the case currently. The Director will be required to provide a copy of the revised map, along with a statement explaining the process of appeal. The Director will also provide the affected community sufficient information to identify which homes are affected. It also requires the Director to notify by registered mail, rather than first class mail, the Chief Executive Officer of each community of FEMA's response to the community's appeal of the flood insurance rate maps. This change will ensure that the community receives the notice of changes and has ample time to comply with the map changes within the statutory effective date. The bill improves upon current law by requiring the Director to notify by first class mail each owner of property affected by the changes in the flood insurance rate maps. Currently, the community is responsible for making sure that the residents are aware of the flood map changes. Requiring FEMA to notify residents expedites the process by eliminating the middleman. Finally, it requires FEMA to reimburse a resident or property owner for reasonable costs incurred in connection with a surveyor or engineer for a successful request to be removed from the special flood hazard area to the Director. This does not include legal services incurred by the resident. It is my hope that this legislation will allow communities to work more effectively with FEMA to ensure that residents are given sufficient, fair, and timely notice if they are required to purchase flood insurance and to ensure that homeowners are not held financially liable when a change in a community's flood insurance rate map does not affect their property. In the last Congress I had members from both sides of the aisle cosponsor the bill. I hope to receive even greater support for the bill in the current Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues to see enactment of the National Flood Insurance Program Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the California Delegation and someone who was honored to serve in Congress with Phil Burton, I wanted to join with my colleagues in celebrating the life of this remarkable man. When I hear the name Phil Burton what comes to mind is the memory of an elemental force of nature. The fact that we reflect today on this man of the House twenty years after his death reaffirms this sense. It reminds me of black holes as astronomers describe them. While they can't be seen, they exert an awesome attractive force. Phil once yelled at me, ``If I'm shouting at you, it means I love you!'' To be on the receiving end of such tough love was not always pleasant, but it was effective. And, it explains, in part, why Phil was a legislator's legislator. One of his biographers describes him as ``one of the most effective and forceful congressmen ever to pass through [these congressional] halls.'' She adds that, ``His force would be missed by those who shared his views after he was gone.'' That is very true. But what is also true is that his force is still felt by those of us who were lucky enough to know and serve with him. I learned much from Phil Burton and continue to use those lessons today.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this blatantly flawed energy bill. This bill isn't sound policy. It isn't forward thinking. It is a flat-out giveaway to the big energy companies. It puts industry profits ahead of the interests of consumers and the environment. It's no secret that the President and Republicans have held closed, backroom meetings with their friends in the big oil and gas industry. The result is no surprise. They've crafted an energy policy that promotes fossil fuel consumption above all else. Now, they say they want to free us from dependence on foreign oil. But, oil dependence is exactly what this bill promotes. Consider the consequences. This bill grants tax cuts to the most polluting industries while providing a pittance for renewable resources, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Solar, wind and geothermal power take a back seat to oil drilling in pristine wilderness areas and off our coasts. This bill will turn the coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field. It will lift the ban on drilling off California's Coast. I strongly oppose these efforts! At the same time, Republicans won't raise fuel efficiency standards for gas guzzling SUVs. But, they will cut the royalties the big oil companies have to pay to the American people for drilling on our lands. Republicans will even allow these polluting industries to get out from under paying their share of taxes by moving into tax havens overseas. Now, for those energy market profiteers, the Republicans leave the door wide open for unfair competition and price manipulation. Clearly, Republicans don't want consumers and small public utilities to pay a fair price for their power. They want to allow the Enrons of the world to skim huge profits while wreaking havoc on the electricity market. Well, we know how well that policy worked in California. For their final act of irresponsibility, the Republicans want to exempt the cancer causing fuel additive MTBE from product liability protections. MTBE has caused wide spread groundwater contamination and remains a significant public health risk. Yet, if this bill passes, polluters will get off scot-free while the taxpayers get stuck with the high cost of clean up. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for consumers and the environment and vote no on this bill. It is time Republicans put a long-term, sustainable energy policy ahead of pandering to their short sighted special interests.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this outrageously irresponsible legislation put forth by the Republican Majority. Giving gun makers, gun dealers, and gun sellers total immunity from product liability doesn't make our streets safer of our neighborhoods any more secure. The manner in which this bill finds its way to the floor deserves some attention. It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee Majority developed this legislation in secret, bypassed the subcommittee and prevented the Minority in Full Committee to make any amendments to it--a trend all too familiar. In the 107th Congress, similar gun liability legislation was introduced, made its way to the House calendar, but didn't get far. The media's focus of the sniper attacks in Washington, DC provoked an outcry of horror as the country watched the violence of guns first- hand. Ironically, that atrocious bill was put on the back burner. It would have illuminated the legislation for what it was, autonomy from product liability for the gun lobby. So, here we are today to debate the issue in less traumatic times, but the fact remains that this legislation has not changed--it is reckless, pro gun political banter. Proponents will tout fallacies that H.R. 1036 is considered necessary to weed out frivolous lawsuits, and that this legislation will not outlaw lawsuits brought by injured private citizens. Instead, they say, it would simply prevent the gun industry from being held legally responsible because a criminal misused a gun. In fact, these allegations couldn't be farther from the truth. This bill will immunize the gun industry from most lawsuits brought by anyone--including private citizens and government entities. Manufacturers for every other consumer product in this country must adhere to strict regulations on product liability. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the gun industry should be exempt from criminal and negligent acts. Conveniently, this bill is being debated just weeks before the National Rifle Association holds its annual meeting. That assures that House Republicans can show up at their conference having passed a priority bill for a huge campaign supporter. I have been a long time supporter of stricter laws regulating guns in our nation. I also oppose any individual or entity being granted blanket immunity from product liability. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill that both weakens our gun laws and removes gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used to kill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the wartime supplemental appropriations bill. Yet, I am greatly troubled by this vote. The President's crusade to preemptively invade Iraq without regard to peace or diplomacy was wrong. I voted against the resolution giving him the authority to do so and remain opposed to this war. I continue to question the President's judgment as commander-in-chief. Yet, when our troops are in harms way, Congress has a duty to support them and support them we must. This bill provides our men and women in uniform with the resources that 1 hope will bring a swift end to the war and minimize the loss of life. That is why I am voting in favor of it today.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Representatives McDermott, Kleczka, DeLauro, Frank, Frost, Jackson-Lee, McNulty and Abercrombie to introduce legislation to expedite the timeframe for reducing to 20 percent the coinsurance amounts that Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay for hospital outpatient services. I'm honored that this bill has the support of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and Families USA. For most Medicare services, beneficiaries are required to pay 20 percent of the allowed payment amount, and Medicare pays 80 percent. However, for hospital outpatient services, Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay much higher co-payments--up to 55 percent for some services. This is an anomaly due to an error in legislative drafting many years ago. Based on earlier legislation I helped enact into law, Congress has already taken some partial steps to correct this wrong. Under current law, hospital outpatient co-payments will reduce to 40 percent by 2006, but they will not reduce to the typical 20 percent level until 2029. We didn't solve the full problem because Congress didn't want to spend the money. The Medicare Outpatient Co-payment Reduction Act of 2003 will speed up this reduction process by decreasing beneficiary coinsurance rates in increments of 5 percent each year beginning in 2007 until the coinsurance rate for all hospital outpatient services is 20 percent by 2010. This expedited reduction is consistent with a recent recommendation made by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MedPAC--the expert body that advises Congress on Medicare. While high coinsurance rates affect all Medicare beneficiaries, they are particularly devastating for the approximate 3.6 million beneficiaries who have no supplemental insurance. Most of these individuals are the ``near poor''--with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid or the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary or QMB program, but with incomes too low to be able to afford supplemental insurance. This group is made up of a disproportionate number of minorities and women. Furthermore, coinsurance amounts are much higher for certain services than others. Those with the highest coinsurance are the ``high-tech'' services, such as radiology services and cancer chemotherapy services. Thus, high coinsurance greatly limits affordable access to these life saving services for many Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Outpatient Co-payment Reduction Act of 2003 is a simple bill. We've charged seniors outrageous amounts for too long already for hospital outpatient services. Seniors shouldn't have to wait another 26 years before they are fairly charged for outpatient services. This is an incremental approach that lowers the co-payment level to 20 percent by 2010. It's a small, but important step to improve health care access for seniors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' with my colleague Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) who serves on the Committee for Education and the Workforce. For twenty-five years the federal government has made hollow promises to fully fund the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act or IDEA. This legislation makes good on these promises. However, it does more than that. By linking funding to better outcomes, it also makes sure that the spirit of IDEA is truly realized for children with disabilities. IDEA opened the school doors to children with disabilities. But, more needs to be done to make special education work for these students. National statistics suggest that there is still a sizable disparity in the outcomes of students with disabilities when compared to other students. When compared to students without disabilities, between 19 and 42 percent fewer students with disabilities are able to pass state proficiency examinations. The drop out rate for students with disabilities is double that of other students. Only 55 percent of students with disabilities receive a regular high school diploma (compared to 75 percent of individuals within the general school population). Individuals with disabilities are 50 percent less likely to attend college than are individuals who are not disabled. Students with disabilities often avoid the painful experience of school and their attendance suffers. The Census Bureau reports that 50 percent of individuals with disabilities are employed, compared with 84 percent of individuals without disabilities. The under-funding of IDEA could help explain why students with disabilities fare so poorly on these critical outcomes. While Congress has doubled federal appropriations for IDEA over the last decade, federal funding for IDEA is still less than half of what Congress originally promised. Unfortunately, recent increases in federal funding have translated into very modest improvement in the overall outcomes of children with disabilities. This would suggest that we not only need more federal funding for students with disabilities, but we need to use our resources more wisely. Disappointingly, the Republican bill, the ``Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003 (HR 1350),'' provides no financial incentives for states and local school districts to close the glaring gaps in educational achievement for students with disabilities. The Republican bill requires that states and local school districts meet new performance standards, but guarantees no new funding if they achieve these goals. Instead, the Republican legislation only authorizes appropriations to achieve full funding of IDEA over the next decade, but it leaves the fate of whether this will actually happen to the appropriations process. With Republicans recently voting to reduce spending on education in their budget, it is unlikely that schools will ever get full federal funding through the appropriations process. Just like the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' the Republicans want better results from schools with less federal government funded resources. In contrast, the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' will dramatically increase the financial support for children with disabilities by making all funding mandatory. However, in order to receive increases, school districts must make sure special education students are not left behind. In return for mandatory increases in funding for IDEA, school districts must help these students: Increase their attendance, increase academic proficiency, lower the incidence of drop out, increase graduation rates, and improve rates of post- secondary employment and education. The bill will also provide mandatory increases in funding for research and development as well as for programs that help infants and preschoolers with disabilities and their families. Experts in the fields of special education, learning disabilities, child psychology and psychiatry and disability organizations agree that the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' will improve the quality of education for students with disabilities. Attached, please find two letters of support for this legislation, one from academic experts and the other from advocates for people with disabilities. Linking mandatory funding to accountability will profoundly change the way IDEA works by doing just that--making it work. The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act is needed to move away from the status quo. Our children, regardless of their ability or disability, deserve more than a second-class education. Please join me in supporting the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. It is about time we give meaning to the phrase, Leave No Child Behind. Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Washington, DC, March 26, 2003. Hon. Pete Stark, Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Stark: The undersigned national mental health advocacy organizations are pleased to offer our support for the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act, important legislation you will soon be introducing in the House. On behalf of our diverse constituency, representing children with disabilities and their families, advocates, providers and professionals, we are concerned about the educational outcomes of students with disabilities who require special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As you well know, students with disabilities have lower rates of gruduation, attendance and overall academic achievement than students without disabilities. Improving these rates and closing the gaps in academic performance between regular education and special education students is of vital importance to our constituencies and is a goal shared by your legislation. The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act would help children with disabilities benefit from education by providing schools with financial incentives to improve special education students' school performance. The mandatory federal funding provided under the legislation would be based on a school's ability to demonstrate improved outcomes on important measures, including attendance, graduation, drop out rates and post secondary education and employment. Furthermore, the legislation encourages schools to make use of available best practice interventions in an effort to assist students with special education needs to fully realize their academic potential--and ultimately realize the true spirit of IDEA. We look forward to working with you this year to enact the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. Thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of students with disabilities and their families. Sincerely, Laurel L. Stine, Director of Federal Relations. Submitted on behalf of: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. American Counseling Association. American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association. Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. National Association of School Psychologists. National Association of Social Workers. National Mental Health Association.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues' attention the following article on Representative Barbara Lee that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine on Sunday, March 23, 2003. Congresswoman Lee has been an eloquent advocate for peace and justice. Her tireless efforts to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq are vital to upholding our nation's moral leadership in the world. She is a credit to this institution and the values of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout the world. I'm honored to serve in Congress with her. [From the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine, Mar. 23, 2003] Giving Peace a Chance; Local Rep. Barbara Lee on Her National Following (By Sam Whiting) It isn't lonely as it used to be way out there on the far left. A year and a half after casting the lone vote opposing President Bush's global campaign against terrorism, Congresswoman Barbara Lee has become the name attached to the anti-war movement. When Lee came to the stage at last month's peace rally in San Francisco, she heard the chant ``Barbara Lee for president.'' She has heard it before, and seen it on signs, from Oregon to Massachusetts. That's a long ways from Mills College, where she graduated 30 years ago. Now a fourth-term Democrat representing Oakland and Berkeley, Lee, 55, gets all the inspiration she needs walking into her district office in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mission San Jose Rotary Club, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary in our community. This club has distinguished itself among the elite service clubs in this country. Mission San Jose Rotary has completed more than 60 projects benefiting many non-profit organizations and restoring buildings of historical significance in our community. The members of this club have assisted in making a college education a possibility for over 80 scholars; have provided over $400,000 for charities; and have made major contributions to the Rotary International Polio Plus campaign, with a goal to eradicate polio from the face of the earth by 2005. The Rotary Club has provided water wells to Central America and built houses in Mexico. This club has received local acclaim for its chili cooking, and it prepares and serves many thousands of meals at the Centerville Free Dining Room. The generous and concerned individuals who are members of this club reach out and make a difference, ensuring promise and opportunity for this and future generations. The spirit of community service is alive and thriving in Fremont, in some major part due to the efforts of the members of the Mission San Jose Rotary Club. I am honored to commend the Mission San Jose Rotary Club for its 20 years of generous service to the community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Representative Jerry Kleczka (who represents Milwaukee, WI and serves with me on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee) and I share a strong concern about the growth of so- called ``boutique'' or ``specialty'' hospitals. These entities are springing up across the country, including across California and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. They are licensed under state law as hospitals, but instead of providing the wide array of services that traditional hospitals provide, they focus on a particular procedure or medical specialty. The medical specialties that are being chosen aren't the vital day-to-day hospital services on which communities depend like emergency rooms and burn units. Instead, they are the highly profitable segments of care--cardiac care and orthopedic surgery being two of the most common types of specialty hospitals. Today, we are reintroducing a bill we first authored in the 107th Congress, the Hospital Investment Act. This bill addresses our concern that these specialty hospitals are skirting the spirit of the physician self referral laws, often called the Stark laws. Those laws allow physicians to invest in ``whole hospitals'' because the services provided in such a facility are so broad that concerns about self referral conflicts are greatly minimized. But that is not the case for specialty hospitals. Most specialty hospitals are jointly owned by the hospitals and groups of physicians who are referring patients to that hospital. Typically, these joint ventures are marketed only to physicians in a position to refer patients to the facility. In these situations, there is great potential for conflicts-of-interest for physicians who refer patients to facilities in which they have an ownership interest. These joint ventures may induce investor physicians to base their treatment decisions on profits generated by the facility rather than on the clinical needs of their patients. This is exactly the type of behavior the Stark laws were written to prevent. The development of specialty hospitals is of great concern to our health care system and to communities across our nation because they deprive full-scale hospitals of their most profitable business, leaving those existing hospitals much worse off financially. The investors in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals skim the profits off full- scale hospitals, leaving them to struggle financially. Then the hospitals must look to Medicare and to their local communities to help them financially. One of the biggest chains of heart hospitals in this country is a company called the MedCath Corporation. One needs only look at their financial statement to see that they recognize the level of concern felt around the nation about their line of business. Their 2002 10-K report highlights nervousness that regulators and legislators are catching onto their scheme. As the report states: ``Many states in which we operate also have adopted, or are considering adopting physician self-referral laws which may prohibit certain physician referrals or require certain disclosures.'' They also highlight specific concerns about our bill from the last Congress and go on to say that, ``Possible amendments to the Stark law could require us to change the manner in which we establish relationships with physicians to develop a heart hospital.'' MedCath is right to be nervous. Their business model not only harms hospitals and communities, it violates the spirit of Medicare self referral laws intended to prohibit such conflicted behavior that drives up costs and may produce unnecessary care. Lawyers for MedCath and many others have found a loophole in the self-referral laws, and physicians are taking advantage of it. The bill we are introducing today would close that loophole. Our bill would continue to permit physician ownership in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals. But, that allowance is contingent on a new requirement that the ownership or investment interest is purchased on terms that are generally available to the public at the time. This change would not prohibit physicians from purchasing shares of stock. However, it would make sure that such stock purchases are not the result of a sweetheart deal available only to physicians and set up in a way to skirt the law. If this bill is enacted, it will make it harder for specialty hospitals and physicians to skim profits from full-scale hospitals leaving it up to Medicare and local communities to foot the bill to assure that access to needed patient care isn't jeopardized. Mr. Speaker, it is time to close this loophole in the Medicare physician self-referral laws, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act. This Republican legislation has a lot more to do with public relations than protecting our first responders so that they can do their job to protect the rest of us. No one doubts that the possibility of a terrorist attack is very real. Yet, Republicans are asking Congress today to short change those Americans on the front lines here at home--our doctors, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and others willing to risk both serious physical harm and financial ruin. Congress has a great responsibility to provide security to these brave and selfless Americans. The smallpox vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in current use. Thus, the decision to become inoculated is not one to be taken lightly. Those who are willing to step forward and receive inoculation to assure that they'll be there to protect others if the need arises, do so at a risk to their lives and, by secondary transmission, to the lives of loved ones. At a minimum, we need to assure these people that they and their families have affordable access to healthcare and won't confront financial hardship if they have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. We are not talking about a small number of people at risk. Experts estimate that out of the 10 million healthcare and first responders who the Administration is requesting to volunteer for this smallpox inoculation program, approximately 10,000 will experience serious, though not life-threatening reactions, upwards of 520 will experience potentially life-threatening reactions and it is anticipated that 5 to 10 people will die. These estimates do not include those individuals who may be secondarily exposed to the live virus by being in contact with an inoculated individual. Furthermore, just in the last week we've discovered something previously unknown about the smallpox vaccine; it may cause heart attacks in people with particular cardiac conditions. The Administration's Smallpox Vaccine Compensations bill is inadequate in numerous ways. Among its inadequacies, it: Fails to provide adequate funding to ensure that state and local public health officials can implement needed pre-inoculation education and screening and post-inoculation surveillance programs; Ignores the need for work place protection standards for individuals who refuse to volunteer for the vaccine program; Provides no requirement that health insurance companies guarantee health insurance coverage for adverse medical events that occur from participating in this voluntary program; Fails to guarantee immediate access to medical care for volunteers who have no insurance or who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare; Provides a wholly inadequate death benefit and a benefit for permanent and total disability limited to $262,100. This in no way replaces the lifetime income that will be lost to the families of the brave individuals who volunteer for this inoculation and are adversely affected; Fails to compensate individuals who become sick and miss work for 5 or fewer days; Doesn't guarantee that the compensation program is even funded. Rather than making it a mandatory appropriation which would assure that the program is fully funded, it is discretionary spending; subject to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. These many inadequacies have lead every major organization representing nurses, fire fighters, and other frontline personnel to oppose the legislation. These organizations include the American Nursing Association (ANA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). My colleagues, Representatives Henry Waxman and Lois Capps, have introduced legislation (H.R. 865) to create a smallpox inoculation compensation program that would meet the needs of these brave volunteers. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has forbidden that bill to be considered by the full House. For that reason, we are forced to vote NO today and try to get the Republican Leadership to recognize that providing true protection to our emergency personnel who have volunteered to become inoculated against smallpox is a priority for this Congress. We need to do the job right! I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1463 today and insist that a compensation bill that truly protects the interests of these volunteers for the smallpox inoculation program be returned to this Chamber for a vote and passage.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to opposition to H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. I am greatly troubled by this vote. I support the AMBER Alert program as a vital means to prevent child abduction and track down those who prey upon our children. I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Network Act that would help all states implement this vital program. It would ensure that a strong nation-wide network exists to protect our children from these horrific crimes. Yet, Republicans have never allowed a clean vote on this legislation. They have decided once again to include this legislation within a larger criminal justice bill that includes new, draconian sentencing guidelines and abuses to our basic Constitutional rights. I cannot in good conscience support these provisions. They will ultimately doom this bill when it comes before the Senate, just like last year. Just as with the child abduction bill brought to the House floor last October, I object to allowing the government to abuse fundamental privacy rights as this bill does. The Republicans continue to push provisions giving the FBI unprecedented wiretap authority to engage in secret surveillance of our homes. This is unconstitutional and I will support it. Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Republican Leadership again insisted on including a ``2 strikes and you're out'' sentencing provision. This type of mandatory minimum sentence is not only draconian, it is ineffective in deterring these types of crimes. This bill again will expand the number of crimes punishable under the death penalty. This is done despite evidence that many Americans have been wrongly sentenced to death. This is wrong and I will not support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting again against this legislation. Lets send a message to the House Republicans to stop putting their blind allegiance to right wing politics ahead of the safety of our kids. Let's get the national AMBER Alert network off the ground once and for all--for the sake of all America's families and their children.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should designate a national day of prayer and fasting for all Americans; and calling on all people of the United States to ``seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings.'' I'm sure God may have something to say about the President's failure to preserve peace in the effort to disarm Iraq. But, we do know what the Bible says, Mr. Speaker: ``blessed are the peacemakers.'' Most major religious organizations in the world--the Vatican, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and Protestant religious groups--oppose war in Iraq on moral grounds. Yet, this resolution seeks to deflect moral criticism from the President's immoral act of war, and despite his refusal to listen to the leaders of his own faith. Regardless, religion is not an area for Congressional debate. I respect the right of everyone to reflect on these difficult events as they see fit. I understand the value of people of various religions or moral convictions finding resolve in their beliefs or faiths during this trying time. That is everyone's right. However, this resolution today has Congress encouraging all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, to engage in specific religious acts that are Christian in nature. Our country was founded on the principles of free expression and religious liberty. The Constitution requires that Congress must not legislate religion, but instead honor the diversity of convictions and beliefs in our nation. This resolution fails to respect the separation of church and state and to uphold our commitment to honor religious diversity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues' attention the following letter sent to President George W. Bush by members of the California Legislature stating their opposition to war against Iraq. I am proud of these 52 lawmakers who represent a diversity of California's citizens. They understand first-hand the cost of this capricious act. Financing this war will mean less federal investment in schools and nursing homes and the loss of basic services for the working poor, the disabled and mentally-ill. They are rightly concerned about the impact this war will have on those young Americans who have been called to fight. They are disappointed about the diminished respect and influence America will have in the world given the President's use of military power, not the interests of peace and democracy, in his approach to foreign affairs. I commend my fellow Californians for their eloquence and outspokenness on an issue of such great importance to the American people. California Legislature, March 4, 2003. Hon. George W. Bush, President, United States of America, The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As Members of the California State Legislature, we respectfully write in opposition to a war on Iraq without a formal resolution by the United Nations Security Council and a declaration of war by Congress. As elected representatives of the largest population and economy in America, we have many concerns over the policies your administration is pursuing. These include: A lack of credible evidence that meets the standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that shows the imminent danger Iraq poses to America's essential interests. Neither Colin Powell nor Hans Blix presented a case sufficient to warrant an attack by American forces. A failure to persuade other nations to support our intentions. Unlike the aftermath of the Attack on America, you have not been able to enlist the support of other key nations, who presumably have been given even more intelligence data than has the American public. This lack of geo-political solidarity substantially weakens America's case in the court of world opinion. Further, it enhances the prospects of fighting a war with few allies. Lack of clarity about the possible instability in the Middle East during the war and subsequent foreign occupation of Iraq. It seems unlikely that the Muslim world will for long passively accept America's incursion--whatever our provocation. Respectfully, Don Perata, Byron Sher, Jack Scott, Mike Machado, Tom Torlakson, Gloria Romero, Wesley Chesbro, Debra Bowen, Deborah Ortiz, John Burton, Liz Figueroa, Gil Cedillo, Sheila Kuehl, John Vasconcellos, Edward Vincent, Richard Alarcon, Jackie Speier, Dede Alpert. Paul Koretz, John Longville, Mervyn Dymally, Christine Kehoe, Jackie Goldberg, Fabian Nunez, Sally J. Lieber, Ronald Calderon, John Laird, Loni Hancock, Judy Chu, Patricia Wiggins, Alan Lowenthal, Hannah-Beth Jackson, Gene Mullin, Cindy Montanez, Marco Firebaugh, Patty Berg, Wilma Chan.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Kids Breakfast Club of Hayward, California on its 10th anniversary. The Kids Breakfast Club was started by educator Marlena Uhrik as a program designed to provide a healthy breakfast and activities during school breaks for children who depend on school lunches for nutrition. After serving 200 breakfasts to low-income children and their families at the Club's inaugural event in December, 1992, Marlena developed a more comprehensive program to include a free breakfast along with expanded opportunities for learning. Today the program serves children during winter and spring breaks, and includes arts and crafts for children, a literacy program with story time and storytelling, free books, clothing, and health and dental screenings and referrals. While the children are engaged in activities, the adults attend adult education classes on topics that interest them, including gang prevention, nutrition, drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and receive training in first aid, CPR, and parenting skills. All of the presenters are bilingual to serve Spanish-speaking parents. The Kids' Breakfast Club has grown from one location to five, and over 30,000 breakfasts have been served in the program's 10 years of existence. The program also includes a year-round, once-a-month Saturday program. It has formed partnerships with the Youth Enrichment Program to provide tutoring for the students, and the Hayward Adult School to provide presenters and leadership. I am honored to commend the Kids' Breakfast Club and its founder Merlena Uhrik for its dedication to providing children and their families with a safe and healthy start when school is not in session. The Club has brought the community together to show true meaning of the African proverb ``it takes an entire village to raise a child.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pat Loomes, Executive Director of Girls Incorporated of Alameda County. Pat has selflessly dedicated her life to inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold. Pat grew up in Ireland and immigrated to the United States with education and activism as her primary goals. After earning a graduate degree she began working at the Berkeley Women's Center in the early 1970s. There she identified the immense need for preventive measures for women who had suffered life-long abuse and low self-esteem, and who possessed very few skills that could translate into employment or self- improvement. It was at this time that Pat accepted the position as Executive Director at a small organization for girls with the passion and foresight that produced the thriving social service agency that Girls Inc. of Alameda County is today. For the past 25 years, Pat has been instrumental in the financial growth of the organization. Under her direction, operations grew to over $3 million, and today the organization serves thousands of girls. Girls Inc. has expanded from a small tutoring and recreational club to offering girls more than 10 acclaimed programs ranging from science, math and technology enrichment to leadership and fitness as well as comprehensive mental health services. During her tenure as Executive Director of Girls Inc., Pat has been ahead of her time in confronting girls' most sensitive needs with conviction and grace. In 1989, when funding cuts discontinued a local program for pregnant teens and teen parents, Girls Inc. began to support services for this population. Pat also oversaw the implementation of the award-winning national program, Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy. Since that time, Girls Inc.'s health and sexuality programming has expanded to include services to school-age mothers, pregnant and parenting girls involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as providing reproductive health education in schools from Berkeley to Union City. Pat's hard work and devotion have not gone unrecognized. In 1986 and again in 2000, the United Way awarded Pat the Seaton Manning Outstanding Professional Award for her ``visionary leadership and tireless advocacy for girls.'' The Wells Fargo Foundation and the Management Center of San Francisco also honored her with the 2001 Navigator Award for Model Leadership. Pat served as a member of the National Girls Incorporated Board of Directors for 13 years. In 1995 she delivered a seminar on math and science for girls at the International Women's Conference in Beijing, China. Her advocacy skills were well utilized in these arenas of national and international policymaking. I am honored to join the colleagues of Pat Loomes in commending her 25 years of tireless commitment to empowering girls. Pat has made it a personal and professional mission to strike a balance between her ideology and direct service to her community. She has been not only the driving force behind the success of Girls Incorporated of Alameda County for 25 years, but a crucial advocate for girls around the globe as well.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of my colleagues an article written by my friend Princeton Economist Uwe Reinhardt. Dr. Reinhardt is well known to many of us in Congress because of his expertise in health care policy. He's an advisor I rely on for his keen insights, knowledge, and his wit--not a characteristic identified in many health economists. What many of my colleagues may not know is that Dr. Reinhardt and his wife, May, have a son who is serving in the U.S. Marines on the front lines in Iraq. Dr. Reinhardt grew up in Germany and saw the horrors of war as a young boy there. His words deserve our attention. He's right. Our thoughts and prayers should extend to all involved in war and against any loss of human life--civilian, military, American or Iraqi. I commend Dr. Reinhardt's article for your attention. His sentiments are ones I share completely and I thank him for being able to so eloquently say what many of us feel. I hope others will take his words to heart. [From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 2003] Innocents in Uniform (By Uwe E. Reinhardt) Princeton, NJ.--CNN recently showed a Marine chaplain admonishing the platoon assembled before him: Pray not only for yourself, he told them, but for your enemies as well. After all, they are just soldiers, like you, doing what they are ordered to do. What a refreshing departure these words were from what I've been hearing from the civilian sector, where the talk is mainly of minimizing coalition casualties or, in more generous moments, innocent Iraqi civilian casualties as well. I wince every time I hear that kind of talk, especially the reference to innocence. Should not the proper minimum in any war be loss of human life, period--which in this case includes Iraqi soldiers, too? My earliest childhood memories were forged by war--real war. My family lived near one of the most ferocious battle grounds of the European war theater--the notorious Hurtgen forest, where American and German soldiers fought one another in hand-to-hand combat for more than four months in the fall of 1944. A plaque at one of the military cemeteries in the area notes that more American soldiers died there than in Vietnam, and surely as many or more German soldiers were killed there too. My family lived opposite a convent that had been converted into a field hospital for the nearby front. I was a small boy then, and watching the ambulances come and go (sometimes peeking curiously into them), I could not help but become witness daily to the horrors of war. Millions of Europeans of my generation, whom many Americans now disparage so contemptuously as pacifists, had a similar experience. Because we lived so near the Battle of the Bulge and the advancing, allied forces, our village was strafed and bombed routinely. One such attack came as my friends and I were playing outside. We ran as the planes approached, taking shelter in the cavernous basement of the convent. There we spied a row of stretchers. On each was a body covered entirely by a blanket. Possibly to overcome our own terror, we dared one another to pull back a blanket on one of the stretchers, to see what a dead man looked like. Someone did. We fell silent instantly as we beheld the serene, waxen face of a very young soldier who could not have been older than 16 or 17. More than 50 years later, I can still see his face clearly. The shock of it recurs whenever I hear the chirpy anchors on the morning programs (not to mention the hawkish talking heads) prattle on about innocent civilians, as if the number of fallen enemy soldiers did not count. What does ``innocent'' mean in the context of war? I am almost certain that the young German soldier my friends and I saw so many years ago in that convent basement was as innocent as those of us who weren't in uniform. For all we know, he had grown up on a farm somewhere and, while fighting in the trenches, dreamed of his girlfriend and of life as an adult in peaceful times. For all we know, he would have happily quit fighting and joined the allies. (He didn't have much of a choice: some German generals strung up on trees the bodies of young soldiers who had deserted, a powerful warning to their peers.) Perhaps many of the Iraqi soldiers, too, find themselves where they are because they have no other choice. After all, is not Saddam Hussein a ruthless dictator, and are not some of his generals likely to be as cruel as their Wehrmacht counterparts? My hope is that Americans can muster the proper decorum that an enterprise as horrible as war demands. There is nothing neat about maiming and killing people with precision bombs from the air or gunfire on the ground--even if they're wearing enemy uniforms. Young lives are snuffed out; parents, siblings and lovers weep, and so should we. We want our troops to win a quick victory, to be sure. As the father of a young Marine officer on the front lines in Iraq, I certainly do. But let us heed that Marine chaplain who, like anyone who has ever witnessed war, knows whereof he speaks. Let us hope and pray for a minimum loss of human life--period.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Sandra Creque's outstanding career in the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office. On April 1, 2003, Sandy will retire as Division Chief, Registration and Outreach after 38 years of dedicated service. Sandy's long tenure in the office of the County Registrar of Voters is legendary. She was committed to community involvement and service from the start of her career in 1965. She soon became involved in working with Students for Rockefeller at the University of California, Berkeley. Sandy was in the community five nights a week and on weekends, training students at UC Berkeley on how to register voters. Many of those students went into the South and conducted voter registration drives during the Civil Rights Movement, while others lead the nationwide anti-war movement during Vietnam, or worked locally to bring political change. Sandy understands the importance of political involvement through the ballot box. She has been instrumental in providing professional guidance about the registration process and has kept to her mission to make sure every citizen is able to enjoy the franchise. With her calm demeanor and wealth of knowledge, Sandy's invaluable contributions to elected officials and office seekers in Alameda County will be long remembered. Sandy helped make the process easier for them and their campaign workers. She made a difference, always behind the scenes, and always willing to go extra miles for everyone. Highlights of her 38 year career that Sandy points to with pride include witnessing Barbara Jordan testify in Washington, DC, on the Voting Rights Act; the opportunity to help extend the vote to all segments of Alameda County's diverse population; and the opportunity to serve the diverse population in such a way as to enhance the electoral process. These highlights are a testimony to the caring and professional manner in which Sandy Creque has conducted herself during her tenure in the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office. She has been an exemplary advisor and a friend. We join Alameda County in saluting this remarkable woman; we thank her for her dedicated service, and applaud her for a job well done.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would note that there is $1.8 billion being cut from the Medicaid contributions to the State of Indiana, which I am sure the previous speaker supports. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who knows all too well what it is to fight in a war with real bullets, unlike the White House and the current Republican administration. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, before I yield a final minute to the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like to use part of my 30 seconds to just suggest to the Chair and thank him for his kind and considerate presiding this afternoon. I know that could only come from a gentleman with whom I served, John Duncan, Sr., for many years the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I always say that fruit does not fall very far from the tree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to leave it to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) with the remaining time to discuss again the tax cut. It is too bad we do not talk more about 42 million uninsured Americans and children without education and the things that are being buried by this recent war talk. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that Michigan is going to lose almost $3 billion in funds for SCHIP and Medicaid under the Republican budget. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the distinguished gentleman how many speakers he has?

Mr. STARK. Sure.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 975. This bankruptcy bill is touted as reform. But, it is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable. Republicans are giving this gift to the big credit card companies in the midst of this difficult recession, making it harder for working families to seek shelter from the common financial emergency of a lost job or lack of health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are filed for these very reasons. It's hard to see the abuse in these real instances of need, especially when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Yet, this Republican legislation makes it more difficult for those Americans forced into bankruptcy--a disproportionate number whom are women and minorities--to seek this protection. In fact, the bill requires the debtor in some cases to have to take on big corporate lenders in court to prove they are worthy of bankruptcy, forcing them to bear legal expenses they can't afford. In addition, this bill also allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly litigation that will in turn force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights. In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so- called reform so that a parent seeking to collect child support from an estranged spouse that's declared bankruptcy will have to fight it out with creditors to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be evicted by their landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same bankruptcy protection. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families. Finally, Mr. Speaker, with all of the perks they've awarded to the big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that they are held accountable. There is nothing in this bill that stops the abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote down this anti consumer bill. Now is not the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on H.R. 975.