Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to allowing drilling off the California Coast and dismantling basic oil drilling safeguards. Barely a year after the worst environmental disaster in our history, Republicans have brought legislation (H.R. 1231) to the floor that shows they are suffering from amnesia. This legislation, when coupled with the two earlier drilling bills--H.R. 1229 and H.R. 1230--would mandate that vast swaths of the East and West Coasts be open to drilling, while fast-tracking new leases without sufficient safety or environmental review. Under H.R. 1231, the Interior Department would have to make at least half of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) available to leasing, including the California Coast, regardless of state objections or safety, economic, or environmental concerns. This is on top of the two earlier bills that would actually make drilling safeguards weaker than they were before the BP Spill while destroying judicial review of leasing decisions. This legislation does nothing to bring down gas prices. It is nothing more than a gift-wrapped handout to the oil industry. Republicans are not working to end the $4 billion in yearly taxpayer subsidies that go to the largest oil companies. They are not working to crack down on the speculation that we know is driving up the price of oil and gas. Instead, they are pushing legislation that would give these companies free reign over our oil reserves and put our coastlines and the jobs that rely on them at risk. The Energy Information Agency has estimated that even if the entire OCS were exploited for oil, gas prices would drop by only three cents--and not until 2030. The U.S. accounts for just 7% of world oil production and we have only 3% of the world's reserves. Despite the bumper sticker slogan of ``drill baby drill,'' we cannot drill our way out of high gas prices. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this misguided bill and focus on sustainable and responsible solutions to rising gas prices.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thursday, May 5, 2011 as the 2011 National Day of Reason. The National Day of Reason, observed by millions of people in this country and around the world since 2003, celebrates the application of reason and the positive impacts it has had on humanity. Reason and rational discourse have the power to improve living conditions around the world and cultivate intelligent, moral, and ethical interactions among people. Reason and rational thinking have made our country great. The Constitution of the United States of America is based upon the philosophies developed during the historical Age of Reason and the idea that citizens engaging in rational discourse and decision-making can govern themselves. The Constitution also contains a strong separation of church and state, making it clear that government should continue to be built on reason. Our nation faces many problems--ending two wars, creating jobs, educating our children, tackling our budget, and protecting our safety net. Although the gravity of these issues may drive many to prayer, the way we will solve them is through the application of reason. The National Day of Reason is also about taking time to improve our communities--whether that means holding a blood drive or collecting items for the local food bank. It is also about ensuring that our government represents citizens of all beliefs and backgrounds. I encourage everyone to join in observing this day and focusing upon the employment of reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, and free inquiry to the resolution of human problems and for the welfare of human kind. It is the duty and responsibility of every American to promote the development and application of reason.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Of the many problems with this legislation, it ignores the fact that the Affordable Care Act already bans federal funding for abortion except in rare cases. Instead of being content with these firm restrictions, the authors of this bill have paved a new way for the most perilous anti-choice policy: their legislation would actually deny a woman an abortion when carrying out her pregnancy would endanger her life. The more subtle details of the bill are almost as onerous. Republicans want IRS agents to double as ``abortion detectives'' who decide whether tax benefits have been improperly claimed with regard to abortion service expenses. Their legislation prevents low-income women and families from using premium tax credits if their coverage includes abortion services. It increases families' taxes when they use funds from their health savings or flexible-spending accounts for abortion related expenses. It denies employers the right to use ACA tax credits to provide their employees with comprehensive health coverage. If this bill becomes law, our constituents will be paying far more than just higher taxes: they will be paying with their privacy, their dignity, and their right to determine the course of their own lives. This bill does everything short of having anti-choice politicians physically present in our doctor's rooms, in our hospitals and looking over our shoulders when we fill out our tax forms. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for our constituents by opposing this thoughtless and harmful bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will give thousands of children in our foster care system a chance at having the one thing many of them say is all they have ever truly wanted--a family. There are approximately 500,000 children in our foster care system right now. Over 125,000 of those are waiting to be adopted, but there are just not enough qualified adoptive and foster parents. That leads to nearly 25,000 youth ``aging out'' of care each year with no permanent family. These young people are more likely than nearly any other group to become homeless or incarcerated, or to suffer with mental illness or substance abuse. There is an acute shortage of adoptive and foster parents. Yet, despite this fact and the documented terrible consequences of long stays in the child welfare system, some states have enacted discriminatory bans prohibiting children from being placed with qualified parents due solely to the parent's marital status or sexual orientation. A number of additional states are actively considering similar discriminatory restrictions. Most recently, Arizona enacted a law to restrict the ability of unmarried and gay and lesbian individuals from adopting. Only six states affirmatively allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt jointly. This is unfair to good people who want to open their homes to youth, unimaginable for kids who just want a family to love them, and unsafe for children for whom we in this body are responsible. If states will not do the right thing, the Federal government should. Congress invests over $7 billion in the child welfare system each year. We should not accept policies that use Federal funds to enact discriminatory barriers to adoption and close the door to thousands of potential homes. Studies suggest that upwards of 2 million gay and lesbian individuals are interested in adopting or fostering a child. There are already approximately 1 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) parents raising about 2 million children in the U.S. Leading child welfare, public health, medical and legal organizations agree that opening up the homes of all qualified prospective parents can help support the unique needs of foster youth. Groups including the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and the American Bar Association, all support the ability of qualified unmarried and LGBT couples to foster and adopt. More than 30 years of research indicates optimal development for children is based on the stable attachments to committed and nurturing parents, not on the marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity of the parents. This research consistently demonstrates that children raised by same- sex parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual development outcomes as children raised by straight parents. When considering a potential placement for a child, the only criteria should be what is in the child's best interest and whether the prospective parent can provide a safe and nurturing home. Bigotry should play no part in this decision. That is why I am introducing the ``Every Child Deserves a Family Act.'' This legislation would simply prohibit any entity that receives Federal child welfare funds from denying or delaying adoption or foster care placements based solely on the prospective parent's marital status or sexual orientation. States and child welfare agencies that fail to end discriminatory practices would face financial penalties. This is the same approach that has put an end to race discrimination in adoption and foster care placements. Children in our foster care system are some of our most precious--and vulnerable--youth. They depend on us to do all we can to find them supportive and loving families, and it is our obligation to act in their best interests when doing so. To fail in our task of opening every possible door to stable, permanent and loving homes is a grave disservice to these children and to our country. We cannot allow divisive politics and the culture war to further harm these children by shrinking the number of prospective adoptive and foster parents. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in saying yes to children and no to bigotry by cosponsoring the ``Every Child Deserves a Family Act.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1213, legislation being brought forth by my Republican colleagues in the House as another step in their ongoing march to undo health reform. Like those that have come before it, this bill is going nowhere in the U.S. Senate. Yet, we are here wasting taxpayer dollars and government resources debating it. This bill would repeal health reform's mandatory funding to states to help them establish health insurance exchanges. Exchanges are the new, fair marketplaces established in health reform to ensure that people have access to quality, affordable health insurance. The law provides grants to states to help them develop these new marketplaces which are to begin operating on January 1, 2014. CBO estimates that HHS will spend $1.9 billion on these grants between 2012 and 2015, after which grant monies are no longer available. This legislation is the strangest of the repeal bills they've brought up so far. In fact, it is downright comical. If this bill were to be enacted into law, it would actually create a federal takeover of the American health care system--the very thing Republicans campaigned against in the last election cycle! That's right. This bill would cause states to lose funding to create health insurance exchanges. However, a key fact that Republicans fail to highlight is that if States don't establish them, the law requires the Federal Government to do so. As most States are facing budget crises, a lack of Federal funds to develop exchanges would lessen the chance that many States move forward with such plans. Therefore, it would fall to the Federal Government to take over. That's what CBO presumes in their analysis as well. So, we have before us today a bill that I predict all House Republicans will support that would actually mandate a Federal takeover of health care and it's being considered as part of their effort to repeal health reform. Are you confused? I am too. With this bill before us today, House Republicans have officially ``jumped the shark'' with their health reform repeal efforts. It is disgraceful that we are wasting taxpayer dollars and precious time we could use tackling the real issues facing America--like creating jobs, withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, or addressing rising gas costs by reducing corporate welfare for the oil industry--in order for House Republicans to continue paying lip service to their repeal efforts. I urge my colleagues to join with me and oppose this Republican bill to repeal funding for health insurance exchanges.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1214, yet another time-wasting attempt to defund part of health care reform. This bill would deny funding enacted as part of health reform for the construction of school-based health centers. It would effectively deny our most vulnerable kids their best option for getting critical health, mental health, and dental services. While claiming to save money, its effect would be the opposite. Eliminating preventive services and options for primary care only means that when kids do get sick, they will need Medicaid benefits to pay for far more expensive services that could have been avoided through early intervention at a school-based health clinic. School-based health centers (SBHCs) are considered one of the most effective strategies for delivering high quality, comprehensive, and culturally-competent primary and preventive health care to adolescents--a population that can be difficult to reach. They remove the barriers that most commonly keep young people away from health services. They are located where students spend most of their waking hours--at school--making them much more accessible than doctor's offices or a clinic. They provide services regardless of a child's ability to pay, eliminating discrimination caused by wealth or the lack thereof. SBHCs reduce absenteeism, tardiness, dropouts, and discipline referrals by helping youth remain in school and engaged in learning. SBHCs are also vital mental health providers for children and adolescents. Today, May 3rd, is National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day. I cannot think of a more destructive way to mark this day than by passing a bill that eliminates access to mental health services that children desperately need. Bullying, violence, depression and stress are rampant in our school classrooms and playgrounds. SBHC staff are on the scene with the time and resources to address these challenges. More importantly, evidence shows that young people are willing to go to a SBHC for counseling, while the stigma of mental health issues is often enough to keep them from seeking help from other providers. Research shows that students who report depression and past suicide attempts demonstrate greater willingness to seek counseling in a SBHC. Students with perceived weight problems report more willingness to use a school clinic for nutrition information. Sexually active students are more willing to seek information on pregnancy prevention and to have general disease screenings at a SBHC. More than 350 applications to build school-based health centers have already been received by the Department of Health and Human Services, from 46 states and the District of Columbia, in response to this new funding opportunity enacted as part of health reform. All of these projects are ready to go--which means immediate jobs for construction workers and others involved in building the centers. Defunding this provision is another example of the Republican disconnect from the real issues people care about--creating jobs and protecting children. Healthy students are better students. Why the Republicans want to eliminate a program that helps kids stay in school and provides opportunities for future success--and creates jobs in the present--is simply beyond my imagination. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and give our young people the chance they deserve to succeed.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget proposal pulls a bait and switch on seniors, people with disabilities, the poor, and anyone who hopes to grow old with dignity in this country. It dismantles bedrock American programs--Medicare and Medicaid--and opens Social Security to future attack. The Republican plan takes Medicare's promise of guaranteed health benefits and swaps it out for a voucher for private insurance--one that's intentionally structured to diminish in value. Seniors will be at the mercy of big insurance companies and left to pay bigger bills out-of-pocket. The Republican plan changes Medicaid to a block grant program. States' funding will fall far short. They'll be forced to slash programs that now cover much-needed health care for kids, the poor, and the disabled. The Republican plan is morally bankrupt and takes the most cynical view of our country's future. It says we should reward the wealthiest Americans and corporations with trillions in tax breaks and pay for them by slashing essential programs that work. I applaud the President for attacking the Republican budget proposal and calling it what it is: a plan to reduce the deficit on the backs of our most vulnerable populations and middle class families. We know there is a better, fairer way. The People's Budget--put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus--works for all Americans and puts people back to work. In contrast to the House Republican budget, it balances our budget in 10 years--while preserving Medicare, improving health reform, maintaining our commitment to education, and making the investments in our infrastructure that will create jobs. It does so by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing sanity to our bloated defense budget. Rather than destroying our safety net like the Republican budget does, the People's Budget ensures that the wealthiest Americans and Wall Street pay their fair share of taxes. The People's Budget would end tax breaks for oil companies and corporations that ship jobs offshore, and it would require Wall Street to pay for the damage it did to our economy. I recently sent a survey to my constituents asking how we should cut the deficit. The results show that 85 percent want to close loopholes benefiting Wall Street and corporations; 78 percent want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end; and 64 percent want defense spending cut. In contrast, only 13 percent think we should cut domestic spending for education and children, and only 12 percent want cuts to Medicare or Social Security. The People's Budget represents the priorities of my constituents and is the real path to prosperity. I'm proud to support it and urge all of my colleges to do the same while voting no on the reckless Republican budget.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the continuing appropriations bill that will cut investments in health and education and will do nothing to create jobs or cut our bloated defense budget. I agree with the President that shutting down the government was not an option and this bill is certainly better than the tea party budget, H.R. 1, which was passed earlier this year. However, I cannot support a bill that shifts the burden of deficit reduction onto the backs of the working class. This legislation would cut $504 million from the WIC nutrition program that helps to provide nutritious meals to thousands of families in my district. It would reduce funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program by $3.5 billion and for community health centers by $600 million, eliminating the primary source of health care for many low-income families. At the same time, the bill actually increases defense spending by $5 billion and cuts funds for local law enforcement. I know the President and Senator Reid had to make tough decisions during this process, but ignoring our massive defense budget is unacceptable. Not satisfied with the cuts to health programs for women and children that made it into H.R. 1473, Republican leaders are also bringing up bills to eliminate funds to implement health reform (H. Con. Res. 35) and support Planned Parenthood (H. Con. Res. 36). The Republican message is clear: if you are poor or struggling to gain a foothold in the middle class, the deficit is your fault and you will pay so we can continue to fund two wars and pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Continuing Appropriations Act and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and health reform.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to weakening the Clean Air Act and ignoring the very real threat posed by global warming. Republicans might like to teach creationism in schools and demonize science, but the fact is that climate change is man-made, is happening, and threatens our way of life. Failure to act is unacceptable. The Obama Administration is taking small but important steps toward regulating only the largest sources of greenhouse gases. This legislation would end that progress. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is exercising its Clean Air Act authority as recognized by the conservative Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Upton- Inhofe bill (H.R. 910) would not only undermine the Clean Air Act, it would also take the unprecedented step of overturning a scientific finding by the EPA that carbon pollution endangers America's health and environment. At a time of rising gas prices and oil related conflicts around the world, this legislation would further increase our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. This bill would take us back to a failed energy policy that has made our country addicted to fossil fuels and imported oil. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, Congress needs to implement a comprehensive energy policy that puts a price on carbon pollution and invests in the energy sources of the future. We could start by ending taxpayer subsidies for giant oil companies and corn ethanol, but I doubt that bill will be on the floor anytime soon. The Republican attack on science and logic will not create a single job or protect a single American's health. All it will do is appease the radical fringe of their party. I urge all my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, a bill that would resurrect the failed District of Columbia school voucher program. This legislation is nothing more than a pet project of the Republican majority that has not proven successful for students or popular with the American people. This is the same majority that just last month voted to cut $5 billion in education funding, potentially hurting students all across this country. Now they want to spend $300 million on a program that serves only a handful of students, and doesn't even serve those few students well. Evaluations of the former D.C. voucher program by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Education found no statistically significant effects on student achievement. GAO also found that the program was poorly managed, concluding that, ``accountability and internal control were inadequate.'' Subsidizing private schools undermines public education in the District of Columbia by shifting resources to private and religious schools, rather than working on ideas for real reform in our public schools. This bill also violates the District's right to home rule by using its school systems for a federally funded social experiment. As a former chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I am well aware of the long struggle the District has waged for self- determination and a voting member of Congress. Unfortunately, instead of moving legislation to enfranchise the people of the District, we are voting today to impose more ideological mandates on the city. Public opinion is not in favor of taxpayer-funded school voucher programs. They consistently fail when they are brought up in state referendums. A majority of Americans do not approve of the idea under any circumstances, and as many as 70 percent are against vouchers if they take money away from public schools. Vouchers don't work, they hurt public schools, and Americans do not support them. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the District of Columbia and oppose this legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Gates recently stated that we could be in Afghanistan past the 2014 deadline for complete troop withdrawal. Meanwhile, more than 60 percent of Americans oppose this war, with more than 70 percent of people believing that we should withdraw a substantial number of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer. This is the longest war in U.S. history and all we have to show for it is a higher deficit and more debt. We already spend the most of any country in the world on defense. The next closest defense-spending country is China--and we spend seven times what they do. Defense spending currently constitutes about 60 percent of our discretionary spending. And it has increased 86 percent since 1998, becoming more entrenched than any entitlement program. As we're talking about cutting important programs that working families depend on, we should not continue to throw money down an endless hole in Afghanistan. I recently conducted a survey in my district inquiring about constituents' priorities and discovered that getting out of Afghanistan was second only to job creation. They also agree that one of the best ways to reduce the deficit is through extensive defense spending cuts. Republicans keep expressing the absolute necessity in cutting $100 billion from the budget over the next five years. Pulling out of Afghanistan would, all by itself, save us over $100 billion in the upcoming budget. It is time for Congress to reassert its Constitutional war powers authority and set a time line for complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. I am proud to support this resolution by Representatives Kucinich and Jones that gives Congress, and therefore the American people, the power to decide whether America enters into or continues a war. I urge my colleagues to follow the will of the American people and support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 28, a resolution that directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove our troops from Afghanistan no later than December 31st, 2011. Secretary Gates recently stated that we could be in Afghanistan past the 2014 deadline for complete troop withdrawal. Meanwhile, more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the war, with more than 70 percent of people believing that we should withdraw most troops from Afghanistan this summer. I recently conducted a survey in my district inquiring about constituents' priorities and discovered that getting out of Afghanistan was second only to job creation. They also agree that one of the best ways to reduce the deficit is through extensive defense spending cuts. This is the longest war in U.S. history and all we have to show for it is a higher deficit and more debt. Yet Republicans, who continue to tout the merits of a balanced budget, refuse to consider ending this expensive war, let alone consider modest defense-spending cuts. Defense spending currently constitutes almost 60 percent of our discretionary spending. As we are forced to consider cutting important programs that working families depend on, we should not continue to throw money down an endless hole in Afghanistan. Republicans continue to express the absolute necessity in cutting $100 billion from the budget over the next five years. Pulling out of Afghanistan would, all by itself, save us over $100 billion in the upcoming budget. The Majority is not listening to the American people. The American people want us out of Afghanistan and they want a solid plan to improve the economy and create jobs, neither of which the Republicans deem worthy enough to address. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution proposed by Representatives Kucinich and Jones that gives Congress, and therefore the American people, the Power to decide whether America enters into or continues a war. I urge my colleagues to follow the will of the people and support this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to not only support National Public Radio, but to speak against a bill that is a top example of thoughtless political pandering. The consequences of this legislation are much broader than simply defunding NPR, which provides thoughtful news broadcasts and well-known programs that are listened to by my constituents and over 27 million people nationwide. This bill will cause all locally owned public broadcasting stations across our country to lose key funding. Yes, this is a job killing bill brought forth by my Republican colleagues. The Republican leadership wants the public to think that they're working hard to cut spending and that this legislation will help taxpayers. Let's call them out on what they're really doing: putting jobs at risk so that they can appeal to right-wing voters. This is not just pettiness--it's pure hypocrisy and goes against everything that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supposedly stand for. Does this bill save a great deal of money? No--it doesn't do a thing to reduce the deficit. Does this bill create jobs? Absolutely not--in fact, it does the opposite. And what happened to the Republican commitment to transparency? This bill has not been available for 72 hours, breaking the Republican leadership's pledge to allow three days for the public to read legislation, and several germane amendments have been rejected. This bill sacrifices jobs and well-loved programs to score political points. It is a waste of this Congress's time and the legislators behind it should be ashamed of themselves. I am happy to work with my colleagues toward real deficit reduction and job creation strategies. Until that happens, I urge Members to vote no against this harmful and tactless legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I acknowledge the passing, on February 20, 2011, of former San Leandro City Councilmember Faith Frazier. Faith was a native of New Orleans and raised in Memphis, Tennessee before attending college at both the University of Cincinnati and Memphis State. She settled at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she received her elementary and junior high school teaching credentials and bachelor of arts. Faith met her late husband James while attending college and they relocated to San Leandro in the mid-1950s. Faith was a pioneer for women's rights and women in government. Shortly after moving to San Leandro she worked to bring women in the community together for purposes of educating them about local city government. She wanted to help women become a part of the government and running for elected office. Her group would eventually become known as the Civic Information and Education Group, CIEG. Faith was a member of the Board of the San Leandro Service Center--a community-based group for helping citizens in San Leandro in need of assistance. She was also a charter member of the first San Leandro Arts Council--which was reconstituted in 1998 and is still active today. Faith was a member of the Library Board of Trustees and sat on this committee for almost 12 years until she won a seat on the San Leandro City Council in 1974. While serving as a member of the City Council she also served as a member of the Associated Community Action Program, serving low income residents of Alameda County for over 30 years, and the Alameda County Training and Employment Board. Among her many other achievements she was also a Founding Member of the Bonaire Civic League and Charter Member of the San Leandro League of Women Voters, appointed Commissioner of the Alameda County Commission on the Status of Women, helped found the Southern chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus, Member of the Peralta Chapter of OWL (Older Women's League) which keeps track of legislation affecting women statewide and nationally, and she was an original founder of the Political Action Committee for Excellence, PACE, which supports women for elective office. I feel privileged to have known Faith. I treasure the opportunity I had to work with her during her tenure as one of the City of San Leandro's Councilmembers and my relationship with her during her active career in community service as a public citizen. I join the community of San Leandro in honoring Faith Frazier. Her presence and contributions will be felt for years to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Termination Act. The new Republican Majority has been in control for 10 weeks. This has been enough time for them to reveal their agenda--an assault on working Americans. The Majority has no plan to keep families in their homes. They have no plan to create jobs and they have no plan to improve health care. Earlier this year, the Majority voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Their plan for those who can't afford insurance or have a pre- existing condition? ``NoCare.'' What about the majority's jobs agenda? The GOP's spending bill, H.R. 1, would result in the loss of up to 700,000 jobs. When asked about the impact of H.R. 1 on the economy, the Speaker replied: ``So be it.'' Today, we are witness to the Republican plan for those families struggling to pay their mortgage. In short, their plan is, ``good luck.'' If you are one of the 2 million homeowners in California whose mortgage is underwater--good luck. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program that is on the chopping block today was part of last year's Wall Street Reform legislation. It is designed to provide short-term bridge loans to homeowners who have lost their jobs, so they can stay in their home while they search for a new job. The program is paid for by a fee on large banks. The program that the majority voted to eliminate yesterday, the FHA Short Refinance Option, would allow homeowners with underwater mortgages to reduce up to 10 percent of their loans principal and refinance into stable FHA loans. Although I agree that both Congress's and the Administration's response to the mortgage crisis has been wholly inadequate, the answer is to improve these programs, not to eliminate them. Congress could work to provide homeowners with the same bankruptcy protections that investors have or we could require banks that received TARP funds to participate in loan modification programs. I don't expect that Republican leaders will be pursuing any of these ideas. The Majority has no plan to create jobs, improve health care, or keep families in their homes. I urge all of my colleges to reject this agenda and vote no.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, to honor the memory of a man who gave his life serving the people of the San Francisco Bay Area. Alameda Fire Captain Scott Carnevale, a resident of Mill Valley, California, died at the age of 42 on January 3, 2011, of occupational cancer. Cpt. Carnevale was a proud Mill Valley native. He attended Mill Valley Middle School and Tamalpais High School, and it was at Tam High that he first met his future wife, Elizabeth. Mill Valley is also where Cpt. Carnevale took an early interest in firefighting, volunteering with the Mill Valley Fire Department in 1992. Cpt. Carnevale then attended the fire academy in Santa Rosa and graduated the following year. Early in his career, Cpt. Carnevale served as a seasonal firefighter in Marin and worked for the Tamalpais Fire District before finally joining the Alameda Air Station as a full-time firefighter. When the airbase closed in 1997, Cpt. Carnevale was hired by the city of Alameda, where he was promoted to Apparatus Operator in 2001 and Captain of Station Two in 2007. Cpt. Carnevale was also dedicated to his fellow firefighters. He served as an Executive Board Trustee and Shift Vice President for the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 689. He was also an active member of the Fire Labor Management Team, and he organized Alameda Fire Department's participation in the California Professional Firefighters Exposure Reporting Program. Cpt. Carnevale had many outside passions and skills, including craftsmanship and the outdoors. He helped design and build his family's home in Mill Valley. He also helped to restore the fire department's two antique fire rigs, and he took it on himself to repaint the insignia at the front door of Station Three. Even a diagnosis of cancer could not slow him down, as he continued to enjoy spending time with his family, traveling, and kayaking. Cpt. Carnevale is survived by his wife Elizabeth Carnevale and his eight-year-old son. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of loss that we ask you to join us in honoring the life of Cpt. Scott Carnevale. Family and friends remember Cpt. Carnevale as an adventurer who was loved and respected for his integrity, selflessness, and dependability. The people of the Bay Area remember him as a true hero.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, the debate we're having today has nothing to do with repealing the 1099 provision. Like every Democrat here who was in Congress last year, I've already voted to do that. We brought forth a bill last year to repeal the 1099 provision and paid for it by closing tax loopholes that encourage businesses to move jobs overseas and other loopholes that promote tax avoidance. Even though that bill was endorsed by NFIB, all but two of our Republican colleagues voted no because they preferred to protect big business over small businesses. Because of Republican opposition last year, we're here again considering legislation to repeal the 1099 provision. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have taken an area of agreement and rejected bipartisanship by choosing to tax middle class families. That's right, this Republican bill is a $25 billion middle class tax increase. The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to make health coverage affordable to those with lower and middle incomes. These tax credits are provided in advance and then are reconciled at the end of the year. In this bill today, Republicans are trying to raise $25 billion by putting middle class families on the hook for massive tax increases when they reconcile those payments. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this Republican bill will raise taxes on middle class families in this income category by an average of $3,000. Many families would be liable for much higher tax increases. The President has announced his strong opposition to this financing mechanism. Consumer Advocates have also spoken out in opposition. These groups include Families USA, Community Catalyst, SEIU and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. All of us want to resolve this 1099 problem. But to do so on the backs of middle income working Americans is flat out wrong. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this bill today so that we can come together and find a way to finance 1099 repeal that doesn't gouge the middle class.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Investing in Our Future Act. This bill will discourage speculation in the financial markets, help us shrink the deficit, and help create a better world for future generations. Today is the Global Day of Action when hundreds of organizations are calling on the world's governments to create financial transactions taxes to generate billions of dollars to help battle the problems that threaten the planet. Our deficit is now a record $1.5 trillion. Most suggestions about how to reduce the deficit require cutting government programs and discretionary spending. These kinds of cuts hurt American families and don't stimulate our economy. I propose that we instead shrink our deficit by looking to the currency market. Every day $4 trillion in currency is traded by the world's largest financial institutions in the foreign exchange markets. U.S. banks generated $7 billion in foreign exchange trading revenue in the first three quarters of 2010. Much of this trading is purely speculative. The banks attempt to outguess the market and in turn, destabilize the economy. The Investing in Our Future Act will place a microtax of just 0.005 percent on the currency trades conducted on or on behalf of U.S. financial institutions. This small tax would not be enough to disrupt the larger currency market but it could decrease speculative trades by as much as 14 percent. The billions generated by this tax will be divided between deficit reduction and causes that will help us build a better world. Forty percent of revenues would be reserved for deficit reduction. Ten percent of revenues will go into a Child Care Assistance Trust Fund. These funds will be used for subsidized child care here in the United States, where six out of seven children who qualify for subsidized care do not receive it. Fifty percent of revenues will be evenly divided between the fight against climate change and world poverty. The Global Change Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Trust Fund will receive 25 percent of all revenues. Climate change destabilizes our world because it contributes to extreme weather, food shortages, and poverty. The other 25 percent will go into a Multilateral Global Health Trust Fund. This trust fund will support programs in poor countries that lack adequate medical infrastructure to treat and prevent diseases like malaria, HIV/ AIDs and tuberculosis. By contributing the revenues from this bill toward these causes, we will be investing in a stable and healthy future for our own country and others across the globe. I urge my colleagues to support the Investing in Our Future Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lament the expiration of the improved Trade Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act enacted in 2009. By refusing to extend this, the Republicans have severely undermined the effectiveness of this vital program that helps people who have lost their jobs due to trade. TAA has had bipartisan support for fifty years. There are workers in all 50 states who received assistance under this legislation. TAA ensures that we support American workers when their jobs are shipped overseas. It provides these workers training for new jobs, health coverage and assistance with their job search. The 2009 reforms brought TAA into a new era so that service sector workers could also benefit from the program. This improved program allowed workers who lost their jobs to China or India, and not just countries with which we have a Free Trade Agreement, to benefit from the program. It also expanded the health coverage tax credit to 80% from 65% of premium costs and granted an extra 26 weeks of income support for workers in training. In just the last eighteen months, over 400,000 workers qualified for benefits under the TAA program, and nearly 27,000 of them are in California. Nearly half of those workers qualified under the provisions adopted in 2009. These new, expanded benefits have now expired because of Republican inaction. The Republican majority is focused on cutting $100 billion from the budget, voting on Patriot Act wiretaps, and taking away health care from millions of Americans. What they aren't doing is helping workers. By allowing the 2009 TAA reforms to expire, the Republicans have once again demonstrated that their priorities are out of line with the needs of ordinary Americans. We owe it to these hundreds of thousands of workers to support them when their job moves overseas. I urge the Republican leaders of Congress to bring an extension of Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 to the floor as quickly as possible.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Wally Herger (R-CA) to re-introduce the Strengthening Medicare Anti-Fraud Measures Act. This bipartisan legislation is a direct byproduct of a joint hearing held by the Ways and Means Health and Oversight Subcommittees last year. The hearing was on efforts to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare. We heard testimony at that hearing from two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Members of Congress pursuing legislative initiatives to reduce Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. The second panel was made up of government witnesses: Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG), The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Government Accountability Office. Numerous witnesses raised concerns about limitations to the authority of the Office of the Inspector General to minimize Medicare fraud. From this discussion it became clear to Representative Herger and me that we should change the law in order provide the Inspector General with the additional requested tools to better protect Medicare. This is a simple bill with only two provisions. It expands the OIG's permissive authority to ban executives whose companies have been convicted of Medicare fraud from the program. Second, it expands the OIG's permissive authority to exclude affiliates of corporations convicted of fraud, including parent companies hiding behind convicted corporate shells. The first change is important because it will enable the OIG to protect Medicare from executives who circumvent exclusion by moving to another company. Under current law, executives whose companies are convicted of fraud can be excluded from Medicare. However, if the executive has left the company by the time of conviction, he or she cannot be barred from Federal health care programs. These executives are able to move from one company to another and continue to defraud Medicare, seniors, and taxpayers. The second change provides the OIG with stronger tools to address corporations that have engaged in fraud. Companies that engage in fraud often set up shell companies to insulate themselves from liability. Criminal settlement negotiations can result in the conviction of these shell organizations with no real operational impact on the parent company. Without discretionary authority to exclude parent companies from the program, the OIG is missing a tool in its arsenal that could allow the government to exclude particularly bad actors or obtain stronger prospective remedies in settlements. This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year by voice vote. Unfortunately, it was not taken up in the Senate. We urge our colleagues to cosponsor this bill so we can quickly enact these new anti-fraud tools to protect Medicare beneficiaries and all of America's taxpayers.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution in support of designating February 12th as ``Darwin Day.'' Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, and his life has had a profound impact on the course of human history. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has not only provided a compelling explanation for the diversity of life, it is also the foundation of modern biology and genetics. Darwin exemplified the scientific curiosity that has led to new scientific breakthroughs that have helped humanity solve numerous problems and improve our quality of life. Charles Darwin is worthy of recognition and honor. His birthday should be a time for us to celebrate the advancement of human knowledge and the achievements of reason and science. It should also be a time for Congress and other elected officials to ensure that children are being taught scientific facts and not religious dogma in our public schools. It is also an opportunity to push back against those that seek to undermine the science of climate change for political ends. I urge all of my colleagues celebrate Darwin Day on February 12th and recognize the important role of science in our society.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again oppose the reauthorization of expiring provisions in the Patriot Act. Last month, Republican leaders gave Members of Congress the chance to read the Constitution on the floor of the House. Perhaps we skipped over the Bill of Rights, because the provisions we're extending today are a direct infringement on Americans' constitutional rights. This legislation grants the federal government sweeping authority to pry into the private lives of Americans. Federal authorities have the power to access private records like library records or credit card statements, even if it's not related to a terrorism investigation. Authorities can receive wiretapping permits without specifying who or what they're going to wiretap. Secret intelligence courts can authorize law enforcement to spy on foreigners who are not connected to terrorist groups. Many of my colleagues were elected based on their rhetoric opposing more power to the federal government. Today's vote gives them a chance to put their money where their mouths are, and say no to giving government the power to violate Americans' civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Defense and Deficit Reduction Act, legislation that will reduce defense spending and thereby decrease the deficit over the next 5 years. This legislation serves as an addendum to the Majority's H. Res. 38, a resolution that reduces all non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. If all other discretionary spending is slated for cuts under the Republican plan, then defense should not be exempt. My bill will reduce government spending by over $36 billion this year and about $182 billion over the next 5 years. The legislation then requires that these funds be dedicated to reducing the deficit. As defense constitutes almost 60 percent of all discretionary spending, it only makes sense that it be included when other discretionary spending is being cut. These figures cannot and should not be ignored. Even Department of Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged the need for defense spending reductions saying, ``We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable.'' Going back to 2008 levels of defense spending would be approximately a 5 percent reduction. With the President reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan starting this year, we should be able to lessen our current spending on war costs. We also have the support of the American people. According to a recent CBS News Poll, over 50 percent of Americans believe we should reduce defense spending to decrease the Federal deficit. Making reductions to the defense budget can help solve our Nation's long-term fiscal problems. If the new Majority in Congress really wants to lower the deficit as they claim to, then they must take all spending into consideration. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to rein in wasteful spending and support the Defense and Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today to oppose the budgetless resolution. It ignores job creation, has no numbers, no specifics, and it gives no serious plan to reduce the deficit. The Republicans say they want to decrease the deficit and that they will try to cut non-defense discretionary spending back to 2008 levels. They say this will save $100 billion in discretionary spending. I am giving them a chance to put their money where their mouths are. Today, I introduced H.R. 413, legislation that would reduce defense spending to 2008 levels. We can't be serious about getting our house in order if we are exempting 60 percent of discretionary spending from cuts. My legislation will save $182 billion over the next 5 years. That's $182 billion from a sector riddled with extra planes and engines the Pentagon doesn't even want. We spend more than any other country. The next closest is China; we spend seven times what they do. How about just cutting back to maybe only spending five or six times as much as China does. I urge support of H.R. 413.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to repealing health reform. Instead of focusing on job creation, my friends across the aisle want to refight the health reform debate and take away patient protections that are already helping people get the health care they need. It bears repeating: health reform is already helping millions of people in America. These aren't just numbers; they are real people. In my community, I received a letter from a young woman named Stephanie Blazin from Castro Valley, California. Stephanie recently graduated from college, married and moved to California where her husband was pursuing a graduate degree. She was lucky and quickly got a job. Then within her first few weeks of the job, she found she was pregnant. This should have been an exciting time for a young couple to start a family. Instead, she learned that her pregnancy was a preexisting condition and she had obtained no coverage for any medical needs surrounding it. She said to me, The first thought through our minds were tainted by how we were going to financially handle this pregnancy and a baby. Fortunately, because health reform is law and she is under age 26, Stephanie was able to quickly change her health insurance to obtain coverage on her father's health insurance. She now has full coverage for her pregnancy. Under the Republicans' plan, Stephanie would be stuck with NoCare. That's the Republican plan. By repealing health reform, the GOP plan would provide no protections for people's health, NoCare if you lose your job, NoCare if you have a preexisting condition, NoCare if you are a senior in the doughnut hole, NoCare if your insurer hikes your premiums and you can't afford it. The Affordable Care Act has finally enacted fair rules for insurance companies. The Republicans want to take those protections away and put the insurance industry back in charge. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican NoCare bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring Representative Giffords, mourning the victims of this senseless shooting, and lauding the heroism of those who endangered themselves to help those who were injured. Saturday's horrific shooting in Tucson of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, members of her staff, a federal judge, and innocent bystanders should never have happened. Representative Giffords was performing the most fundamental duty of a Member of Congress--she was making herself available to her constituents. It is something we all do--and something I strongly believe we must continue to do. My thoughts are with the victims, their family members and their friends at this time. I hope that we can learn from this tragedy. Violence has no place in our democracy. While the details of the shooting are still coming to light, we can all agree that political rhetoric and imagery that condones or encourages violence--whether from activists, party organizations, or politicians--is unacceptable. We can have differences of opinion on policy and still treat each other with humanity.