Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill. It is unfortunate that Republicans felt it necessary to use this legislation as a vehicle to peddle their anti- environment agenda while forcing cuts in basic priorities. I would have liked to support many provisions included in this bill. This bill contains funding I have worked for to fund two Army Corps of Engineers flood control studies that will help communities in my district to evaluate flood problems. It will also provide money for a pilot program in Alameda County to protect children at risk from entering the long-term foster care system. I strongly support these vital programs. However, I have no choice but to oppose the legislation before us today. I cannot in good conscience support this Republican bill because it will open the door to an unprecedented assault on our environment. It grants logging companies unfettered access to public lands to devastate and degrade our national forests. It specifically invites the timber industry to invade Alaska's Tongass Rainforest and reduce the splendor of this wilderness to a patchwork of clear cuts. It opens the pristine landscape of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the gas industry to make another oil field. An it leaves little money for the unkeep of our national parks and conservation efforts. Beyond assaulting our environment, this bill continues to shortchange education and will leave our children behind regardless of the President's rhetoric to the contrary. It calls for an across-the-board cut in federal investment in our schools, a cut of over $300 million this school year. This bill also makes it more difficult for parents and students to pay for college. The meager increase for Pell grants doesn't even keep pace with the rising cost of inflation. The bill makes a drastic cut in housing subsidies for poor families. In this tough economy, there is little reason to make times harder for those who have already been hardest hit by this tough economy. Finally, this bill makes a mockery of homeland security and public safety. While the President continues to raise fears about impending terrorist attacks, his Republican cronies aren't funding the first responders who will be on the front lines if such an attack occurs. This bill also contains cuts in security at our ports, dams, and nuclear facilities that if breached could have a catastrophic impact. I urge President Bush and Congressional Republicans to end their assault on our basic priorities. I ask my colleagues to support Representative Obey's motion to recommit, which would remove the disastrous anti-environmental riders from this bill. And, if that motion does not pass--which it won't--I urge my colleagues to vote against the entire bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I gladly recognize and congratulate President Ronald Reagan on his 92nd birthday. However, I voted present because I could not in good conscience support a resolution that goes beyond simply offering personal well wishes and endorses President Reagan's economic policies. I do not believe President Reagan's legacy of monumental budget deficits and excessive tax cuts for the rich was good economic policy. I don't believe his policies renewed America's economic prosperity. Instead they left too many Americans behind and left a giant bill we are still paying today. I am sorry that the authors of this resolution felt it necessary to insert such partisan language. It would have otherwise been a completely non-controversial resolution that I would gladly support it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns with the content of the resolution congratulating Israel on their recent elections. What could--and should--have been a nice innocuous resolution congratulating a key ally for running their recent election more fairly than we can, was instead hijacked by anti-Palestinian groups in Congress and turned into another diatribe against the Palestinians. Rather than simply congratulating Israel, the resolution includes language accusing Palestinian leaders of supporting terrorism in Israel and the occupied territories. It further suggest that leaders of the Palestinian Authority, chosen by the Palestinian people, should be thrown out of office. If our role as a nation is to play peace broker in the Middle East, we must stop choosing sides in this ongoing conflict in which neither side is fully in the right. I do commend Israel for conducting a free and fair election and I wish I could say the same for our most recent Presidential election. But, the commendation should have ended there.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my grave concerns with the content of the resolution condemning the election of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I abhor Libya's human rights record. I don't agree with Libya's selection to head the Commission. But, the members of the United Nations have held a legitimate, democratic vote. Despite our serious reservations we have a responsible obligation to abide by the U.N.'s decision. We should not, as this resolution calls for, hold nations accountable for their votes. In a straight up or down vote, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights voted to elect Libya as its chair. Many people don't agree with that decision--Members of Congress, human rights advocates and many others. There is clear evidence of Libya's state sponsorship of terrorism and it's human rights record. Yet, regardless of our distaste with the outcome, this was a fair election in which the member nations elected Libya to this post. Everyone involved had an opportunity to vote and a majority decided who they wanted to lead them. Democracy has prevailed. Now, the U.S. Congress is asked to vote to condemn that practice of democracy? The United States should practice what it preaches. We cannot in one breath say democracy is good and in the next say democracy is bad, simply because we disagree with the result.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Building Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2003.'' This legislation amends existing welfare law to provide alternative programs to the Republican marriage proposals. It would also improve provisions concerning family violence, childcare, care-giving, and teen pregnancy prevention. I'm thankful to Senator Murray for working to pass companion legislation in the Senate. I am also grateful to the more than 80 poverty, domestic violence, and children's groups that have endorsed this legislation. As the current Republican marriage proposal demonstrates, even when Republicans correctly identify a societal problem, they administer the wrong remedy due to their blind allegiance to their Christian right wing ideology. Of course families with one income are likely to be poorer than families with two incomes. However, simply getting poor people married does not address any of the underlying causes of poverty such as domestic violence, substance abuse or mental illness. In fact, encouraging marriage may exacerbate those very problems. Thus, the Republican solution is at best naive and simplistic and at worst dangerously harmful and intolerant. In contrast, the Building Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2003 provides evidence-based solutions to help families overcome problems such as: lacking sufficient income, suffering from family violence, facing teenage pregnancy, being without child care or care-giving skills themselves, or suffering from physical and mental disabilities. My bill provides an alternative to the marriage promotion provisions of the Republican plan by creating a $100 million per year competitive grant to states to be used for one of the following programs: Income enhancement programs (like the Minnesota Family Investment Program); Programs that provide education, opportunity and support to teens to reduce first and subsequent births; and Programs that provide services to build family stability by securing employment and child care, and providing other services such as mental health and substance abuse counseling. One of the key programs encouraged in my bill is the Minnesota Family Investment Program or MFIP. This innovative program allows welfare recipients to keep more of their welfare check while they work. It is structured to raise incomes, MFIP is the only welfare program in the country that has created more stable marriages and improved outcomes for child well-being. In fact, Wade Horn, the Assistant Secretary for Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, agrees that MFIP works. In a November 2000 Washington Times editorial Horn wrote, ``These results [of MFIP] provide dramatic new evidence that changes in welfare incentives can increase the likelihood that single parents will get married and that married parents will stay married.'' Unfortunately, the Republican marriage plan in their welfare bill does nothing to encourage MFIP-type programs. Instead, it narrowly focuses on providing education programs that deal with inadequate relationship skills, unrealistic expectations about marriage, and the inadequate meaning of marital commitment. It ignores other economic, social and cultural issues relating to marriage instability. Unlike MFIP, there is no evidence that the Republican-backed marriage programs work. But, maybe they don't care. Their proposal fails to require grantees to meet any criteria of experience, competence or fiscal soundness to get these grants. Also, there are no evaluation standards in their grants. Therefore, it is apparent that the Republican program is more an effort to appease its political base--the religious right--than it is to stabilize and make poor families secure and healthy. Besides its competitive grant program, my bill encourages parental care-giving and seeks to protect children from the dangers of poverty. Specifically, the bill: Prohibits states from kicking children off welfare for parents failure to meet TANF requirements; Disallows states from sanctioning parents on welfare who cannot meet their work requirements because they have no available child care for their children age 13 and under; Requires states to count care-giving as work for parents who have children that are age I and under; Gives states the option to count as work care-giving for a child up to age 3; Deems care-giving for one's sick or disabled child or other family member as a work activity and stops the welfare work clock for care- giving for one's sick or disabled family member Finally, this bill extends the current Family Violence Option by requiring that states: Coordinate with domestic or sexual violence coalitions in the development of policies and procedures to have trained caseworkers identify survivors of domestic and sexual violence, refer them for services, and modify or waive welfare work requirements as necessary. Provide notice, confidentiality, and pre-sanction review to ensure that individuals are not being sanctioned under the welfare law when domestic or sexual violence is a significant contributing factor in noncompliance. Unfortunately, studies show that even local welfare offices of states that have domestic violence provisions may not fully inform individuals who disclose domestic violence of all their rights. Approximately 75 percent of welfare recipients who identified themselves as victims of violence were not informed about available services, including counseling, housing, or the possibility of using work time to seek help. To have a secure and healthy America requires having secure and healthy American families. This bill helps develop those healthy American families by broadening the use of the Republican marriage promotion funds to fund proven programs we know that have accomplished this goal. Please join me in enacting the ``Building Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2003.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I join with Representative Leach and 18 other colleagues to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2003. Senator Mikulski is introducing the companion bill in the Senate. This legislation changes a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that omits Certified Social Workers, CSWS, from a list of clinical professionals allowed to directly bill through Medicare, Part B for mental health services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities, SNFs. As a result of this omission, CSWs are the only Medicare-authorized mental health providers without this direct billing capability within the SNF setting. Approximately 20 percent of seniors suffer from mental illness and the prevalence is higher in nursing home residents. These mental disorders interfere with the person's ability to carry out activities of daily living. They include major depression, anxiety, and severe cognitive impairment resulting from Alzheimer's disease. Furthermore, older people have the highest rate of suicide of any age group. Thus, access to mental health services for seniors in nursing homes is very important. Unfortunately, the inability for CSWs to bill Medicare Part B in SNFs has the effect of excluding these highly skilled professionals from providing mental health services to this population. This is particularly problematic in rural and other medically underserved areas where other Medicare-authorized mental health providers such as psychiatrists and psychologists are often unavailable. The National Association of Social Workers, NASW, strongly supports this access enhancing legislation. Clinical social workers are highly trained mental health professionals who have participated in the Medicare program since 1987. They constitute the single largest group of mental health providers in the nation. Until BBA'97, clinical social workers were able to bill Medicare directly for providing mental health services to SNF residents, just like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Their current exclusion from this provider list is not defensible. The ultimate victims of the current regulations are the vulnerable seniors who need mental health care. Mental health treatment works. Alzheimer's patients and their families can benefit enormously from psycho-education and counseling around how to cope and manage behavior problems. Research trials have repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapy, either alone or in combination with medication, can be effective in treating depression and debilitating anxiety. Clinical social workers provide these important services and do so at a fraction of the cost of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. In summary, our legislation changes a billing mechanism that again makes it viable for CSWs to provide mental health services in skilled nursing facilities. As a result, our legislation helps to ensure ease of access to needed mental health services to the many Medicare beneficiaries who reside in skilled nursing facilities. The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act is a small technical change to existing law, but it would have the effect of improving the lives of Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes who are suffering from mental illness. We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this important legislation this year.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the historic Niles Library, located in Fremont, California, on its 75th anniversary. Although the library as we know it today was officially dedicated in 1928, the first Niles Library actually opened its doors 38 years earlier in the back of Mr. Dickey's general store. In 1900, the growing book collection became incorporated as the Niles Free Public Library Association and was given a permanent home in Niles' former Southern Pacific Railway station. In 1927, Mr. and Mrs. William H. Ford donated $30,000 to construct a new building for the library. On January 14, 1928, the library was dedicated in honor of Mrs. Ford's mother, Jane R. Clough. Future Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was then Alameda County District Attorney, was present at the dedication. In 1936, the Niles Free Public Library Association transferred ownership of the Jane R. Clough Memorial Library to the Alameda County Library system. In recent years, the library's collection has grown, but it remains a small and friendly neighborhood library. Today, the library's collection boasts over 11,000 items, including books, magazines, newspapers, videos, CDs, audiocassettes, and several important pieces of artwork. In 1970, John E. Kimber donated Poppy Nymph, a statue by renowned California artist Jo Mora. For the library's 50th anniversary, the Fremont Friends of the Library commissioned Fremont artist Hal Booth to create a commemorative painting, which is still on display at the library. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the historic library's dedication. A ceremony featuring a speech by California State Librarian Kevin Starr and entertainment from Niles Elementary School students will be held on February 8, 2003 in celebration of this significant milestone.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to require accuracy in the way corporations report profits and account for stock options on their Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) earnings reports. I'm pleased to be joined by Representatives Earl Pomeroy, Henry Waxman, George Miller, John Olver, Jan Schakowsky, Bernie Sanders, Bill Lipinski, and Raul Grijalva in introducing this important bill. Senators Levin and McCain recently introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Under current law, companies can deduct stock option expenses from their income taxes as a cost of doing business, just like they deduct employee wages. However, companies are not required to similarly report stock option expenses on their SEC financial statements to stockholders. Therefore, SEC reports don't accurately reflect a company's actual earnings because there is an outstanding compensation liability that is not accounted for in the earnings statement. This misleads employees and investors on the financial standing of their investment. My bill, Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act, would help institute accuracy in the reporting of corporate profits. It would require corporations to report stock options as expenses on their SEC earnings statements in order to receive a tax deduction for stock option compensation on the IRS income statement. Last year, employees and investors faced an onslaught of accounting scandals that led to bankrupt corporations, diminished pension funds and mass lay-offs. While Congress addressed many of the accounting problems that led to the deluge of scandals, the treatment of stock option expensing has not been addressed. Without this reform, corporations will continue to mislead investors on the real value of their investments and undermine the integrity of the market. The Financial Accounting Standards Board or FASB is the self- regulated accounting board that oversees SEC reporting. FASB recommends that companies record stock options as an expense on their SEC financial earnings statement, but does not require that stock options be treated as an earnings expense. In fact, stock options are the only form of compensation not treated as an earnings expense at any time. FASB is currently rethinking this standard due to pressure from investors and its international counterpart, the International Accounting Standards Board or IASB. At the end of this year, IASB will issue new accounting standards requiring companies to expense stock options. The FASB is expected to announce in the next month whether it too will issue new stock option accounting standards similar to those of IASB. It is my hope that FASB will come out with a decision to require expensing of stock options. But as we've seen in the past, political and corporate pressure may dissuade FASB from providing more transparency to earnings report requirements. I hope the introduction of this bill will help encourage FASB to do the right thing and require companies to account for stock options. However, if they succumb to industry pressure, Congress should enact this bill and fix the problem once and for all. Prior to last year's scandals, nearly all companies relegated their stock option expenses to merely a footnote in their SEC report. Yet, these expenses were not reflected in their bottom line earnings. Since last year's scandals, many more companies have responded to investors' demands that stock options be expensed in earnings reports. Over 120 companies, including Amazon.com, Coca-Cola, and General Motors, have announced that they will voluntarily expense stock options on their SEC earnings reports in 2003. They should be commended. Nonetheless, many other companies have claimed that they will not expense stock options until forced to do so. Again, Congress took important steps last year to address statutory flaws relating to corporate governance and the accounting industry. My legislation, ``Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options'' is another needed step to help prevent companies from misrepresenting their value to their investors and employees. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the efforts of the IASB. Congress ought to heed the call of investors and ordinary Americans to ensure accurate reporting of profits and stock options expensing. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill this year.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing this bipartisan motion to recommit and giving us all an opportunity to correct some technical problems in Medicare that both parties have agreed to. The physician payments were cut last year; and if nothing is done, they will be cut again. There is absolute agreement between the administration and those of us on the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means that that was an error in the calculation formula and it must be fixed. There has been a great deal of gamesmanship over this area, but I think it is time to take care of it. The Senate in its omnibus funding bill increased the Medicare payments for physicians and rural hospitals. This provision for physicians is temporary but would be in effect for the rest of this year. I do not normally favor, much less encourage, legislating Medicare provisions in an appropriations bill; but it is clear that this is the only way to get this done in a timely fashion. The Senate has passed these provisions. And so it clearly need not hold up the CR. A few hours ago, in a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means, when asked whether the President supports the Senate-passed physician fix, OMB Director Daniels testified that he did. In fact, he said yesterday that the President would support any number of measures to fix it. I realize that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means may not be happy with this, but the Committee on Ways and Means has looked the other way when the leadership puts wage reclassifications and other targeted Medicare provisions in appropriations bills. So I would hope for those of you who come from rural districts, and we are only talking about $250 million for rural hospitals, it is a provision that was consistent with the nonpartisan adviser to the House, MedPAC, who recommended that we help these rural hospitals with this small amount. It is consistent with the Health and Human Services provision that we must change the physician reimbursement. It is not permanent. It helps cure the problem for the remainder of this year. I hope that all Members will take this opportunity to see this as a carefully crafted way to help our physician community and to provide for the rural hospitals this small amount that is needed. There is no reason to oppose it. I know of no reasonable opposition. It has been passed in the Senate overwhelmingly, I think unanimously; and it is under the Republican leadership. With the White House supporting it, with Health and Human Services supporting it, who could be against it? I urge all my colleagues to accept the motion to recommit.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Indo-American Federation and its Founding President, Jeevan, Zutshi on the occasion of the Federation's second annual Unity Dinner. Until 1995, Mr. Zutshi served as senior Vice President of the Federation of Indo-American Associations (F.I.A) focused on assisting new immigrants and educating youth. The Indo-American Community Federation, founded in 1994, is an organization committed to promoting Indian socio-cultural heritage and the assimilation of Indo-Americans in mainstream America through participation and involvement. In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorism attack, Mr. Zutshi convened Unity Dinner 2002 to bring the community together. Elected officials and community leaders were among the over 400 individuals representing California's diversity who attended Unity Dinner 2002. This year's Unity Dinner will be held on January 24, 2003 and will build on the success of the Federation's efforts to maintain positive intercultural ties. Jeevan Zutshi fully exemplifies the goals of the Indo-American Federation. He has been an energetic voice for community acceptance of different cultures since he emigrated to the U.S. from Kashmir, India in 1972. In addition to the Indo-American Kashmir Forum, Mr. Zutshi is a founding member of the Indian American Friendship Council, the Federation of Indo-American Association of Northern California, and the Kashmiri Overseas Association. I commend the Indo-American Community Federation and its founder Jeevan Zutshi for their important contributions to our community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Market Acquisition Drug Price Act. This bill would correct a long-standing and well-documented problem with the way Medicare pays for the few outpatient prescription drugs it covers today. This bill would save the government billions of dollars and lower cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries who are paying a substantial share of the industry's bloated prices today. Congress should enact this bill immediately. This problem must be resolved--this year--whether or not we succeed in creating a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. We have had hearings, we have had GAO and Inspector General reports, and we have had bipartisan consensus that this is a problem, but due to pharmaceutical industry efforts, we have had no congressional action. This problem was not addressed in the prescription drug legislation passed by the House Republican leadership last Congress. In the absence of congressional action, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, at the Department of Health and Human Services recently took modest steps to trim overpayments resulting from the current system. I applaud CMS's efforts and urge them to take any actions within their authority to ensure that Medicare pays reasonable prices for drugs. However, the ultimate solution to this problem requires legislation. Despite the House Republican leadership's persistent neglect of the issue, I believe there is bipartisan consensus that Medicare should not continue to pay exorbitant prices for prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Medicare currently pays for only a limited number of outpatient drugs, generally ones that a patient cannot self-administer, such as chemotherapy drugs. Medicare spends over $5 billion every year on these drugs. Under current rules, Medicare vastly over-pays for these drugs, because it bases payments on the artificially high ``average wholesale price,'' AWP, reported by the drug's manufacturer--regardless of the actual price a provider pays for the drug. There is abundant evidence that drug manufacturers have boosted their own drug sales and increased their profits, at great taxpayer expense, by manipulating the AWP of their drugs. Simply put, drug manufacturers report inflated prices, sell providers the drugs for much less, and then encourage providers to bill Medicare for the maximum allowable amount--95 percent of the inflated AWP reported by the manufacturer. This bill offers a straightforward solution to this problem. It would require Medicare payments to be based on the actual market prices at which manufacturers sell their drugs. This price, called the average acquisition price, would be verifiable. The Secretary would have the authority to audit drug companies' reports. Drug companies would be subject to steep fines for deliberately filing false or incomplete information. Mr. Speaker, the current Medicare AWP rules are a sham and must be changed. Consider the following: The General Accounting Office has described the AWT as ``neither `average' nor `wholesale;' it is simply a number assigned by the product's manufacturer.'' The GAO found that Medicare's payments for physician-administered outpatient drugs were at least $532 million higher than providers' potential acquisition costs in 2000. Similarly, the GAO found that Medicare paid at least $483 million more for supplier-billed drugs than suppliers' potential acquisition costs in 2000. Some drugs were available at prices averaging less than 15 percent of the manufacturer's reported AWP, while Medicare continued to pay 95 percent of AWP. In a real-life example, Mr. Bob Harper of Florida wrote to me about the high costs of one of his wife's chemotherapy drugs, Leucovorin. According to a September 2001 GAO report, this drug is widely available for just 14.4 percent of the AWP. Yet beneficiaries can be charged as much as 19 percent of the AWP--more than the actual price of the drug. Mr. Harper stated that his wife is being charged a co-payment of $155.27 for 36 treatments, or a total out-of-pocket charge of $5,589.72 for this drug. As Mr. Harper said, ``This is outrageous!'' The Office of the Inspector General, OIG, at the Department of Health and Human Services found that Medicare could save $761 million per year by paying the actual wholesale prices available to physicians and suppliers for just 24 of the outpatient drugs currently covered by Medicare. Numerous states, consumer groups, and private health plans have sued drug manufacturers for fraudulently inflating Medicare drug prices. These suits follow on the heels of a record Medicare and Medicaid fraud settlement by TAP Pharmaceutical Products. In October 2001, TAP pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to violate federal law. TAP agreed to pay $875 million--the largest criminal fine ever levied by the government for health care fraud--to settle the suit, in which the government alleged the company artificially inflated the AWP of the company's prostate cancer drug Lupron. In October 2002, the OIG issued draft compliance program guidance to pharmaceutical companies. This guidance specifically highlighted pharmaceutical companies' manipulation of the average wholesale price as fraudulent behavior: ``A pharmaceutical manufacturer's purposeful manipulation of the AWP to increase its customers' profits by increasing the amount the Federal health care programs reimburse its customers implicates the anti-kickback statute.'' Mr. Speaker, the problem is well known. The solution is straightforward. Both the GAO and the OIG have recommended that we revise Medicare's drug payment policies to reflect actual market prices, accounting for rebates and other discounts available from manufacturers. That is exactly what this bill does. Manufacturers would be required to report the actual average market acquisition prices for their drugs as a condition for Medicare coverage of those drugs. Each manufacturer would have to certify the accuracy of its reports and the Secretary of HHS would be empowered to audit price information to verify the accuracy of the reports. Drug manufacturers would be subject to unlimited civil monetary penalties for filing false reports and would be subject to a penalty of $100,000 for each day they fail to provide timely information. The bill is also carefully crafted to ensure that the reimbursement revisions will not adversely impact Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. First, to ensure these drugs are available in areas of the country where providers must purchase covered drugs at prices above the average, the actual reimbursement level to providers would be set 5 percent above the average acquisition price. Second, Medicare would pay dispensing fees to reflect differences in the costs of dispensing different drugs and biologics. Third, the bill would ensure continued access to cancer treatment. Oncologists have argued that inflated AWP reimbursements are necessary to compensate for the administration of cancer medicines. This bill would correct this anomaly by revising Medicare payments for oncology services to appropriately account for these indirect costs, in accordance with GAO recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that Congress will act to provide a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. On top of the many other serious concerns I have with the so-called drug benefit bills offered by the Republican leadership in recent years, I am deeply disappointed that they have not addressed the abuses of the current AWP system. We must not shirk our responsibility to ensure that Medicare properly pays for the limited outpatient prescription drugs it already covers. There is no need for taxpayers to continue to fill pharmaceutical companies' coffers with the ill-gotten gains of the current AWP system. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Anna Elefant on the completion of her second term as trustee of the Alameda Board of Education. An eight-year veteran on the school board, Ms. Elefant has the maximum number of terms allowed under district term limits. In 1997 and 2001 she served as Board President, and as Board Chair of the successful 2001 ``Measure A'' School Parcel Tax Campaign. Ms. Elefant has also served the Board as a member of the Superintendent's Woodstock Child Development Center Advisory Team, as Board Representative to the California School Age Families' Education program at Island High School, as Board Chair of the search for a new superintendent of schools in 2000, and as Board Representative to the City of Alameda Economic Task Force. Ms. Elefant is a passionate advocate of educational excellence. She has supported innovative programs such as year-round education, developmental education, and open enrollment for special programs. A persistent lobbyist, she has worked at state and local levels to increase funding for the Alameda Unified School District. In November of 2001 she successfully rallied the community to pass the city's first school funding parcel tax. She provided courageous leadership to settle a historic 3-year closed salary contract,, and helped district employee groups in rebuilding trust in the district. The mother of three children attending Alameda public schools, Ms. Elefant was the first PTA co-president of Bay Farm Elementary School when it opened its doors in 1992. I am honored to commend Anna Elefant for her years of service to the Alameda Board of Education. A dedicated member of the Board of Education, Elefant has continually worked to expand the District's vision of meeting the educational needs of all students.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I commend to your attention the following editorial, ``No interest like self-interest,'' written by Alexandra Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi is a television news producer who co-directed the documentary ``Journeys with George,'' a behind the scenes look at George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. She is also the daughter of the House Democratic Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi. It is clear that apples don't fall far from the tree. The values, commitment and leadership Nancy Pelosi exemplifies resound here in the eloquent words of her daughter. I commend Alexandra Pelosi for her straightforward insight. She is right to call on the President to put the common good ahead of self-interest and to challenge all Americans to the same. The following is a reprinted version of Ms. Pelosi's editorial that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 3, 2002: No interest like self-interest Watching President Bush on television this election cycle at those staged, made-for-TV photo-ops as he stumped for the congressional candidate du jour made me nostalgic. Back in 2000, when I was an NBC News producer covering his campaign, then candidate Bush sat down with me and my absentee ballot during the primaries. This is the pitch Bush made to me, a declared Democrat, for why I should vote for him: ``You're in a key position. You happen to know me, you can read me like a book, you are able to share thoughts with the people of NBC in such a way that no one else will. And if I lose, you're out of work baby, you're off the plane, baby. It's in your interests.'' He appealed to my ambition and my pocketbook. He didn't push my country's interest--but rather, my own. His pitch struck me as a cynical appeal to the personal good over the public good. So I asked, ``But is that why people are supposed to vote? Are they supposed to vote just for themselves? What about the little people? I have a good job, I have a good life. BUT what about the people who really need my vote: the hungry, the unemployed, the homeless?'' He didn't really have an answer for me, all he had to give me was a kiss. A lot has changed since Bush became president. A new patriotic fervor and a spirit of sacrifice swept the nation after Sept. 11. Remember the endless lines of New Yorkers celebrating the rescue workers near Ground Zero, the generous donations coming in from across our country? America showed the kind of selfless spirit that has defined some of the best moments of our history. We were ``stronger, more united.'' Remember? If the days after Sept. 11 taught us anything, it was that the American way of ``me first, me only'' just isn't going to make it in the new millennium. We were willing to admit that ``what is good for you, may not be good for your country.'' It felt like a new day was dawning. So when I saw Bush campaigning last month, I was surprised to see him using his old line. Here is the pitch he made to the people of New Hampshire for why they should vote for John Sununu, the Republican senator-elect: ``It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat or independent, it's in your interest, it's in your personal interest and it's in your state interest that you have one of your own be the chairman of one of the most vital committees in the United States Senate.'' These midterm elections made me wonder. Have we learned nothing in the last two years? What happened to the Sept. 11 lesson of selflessness and sacrifice? The political commentators love to marvel at how President Bush has grown up in office. And people who see ``Journeys With George'' always ask me about how he has ``risen to the occasion.'' For evidence of his evolution, they point to the scene in my movie that takes place 60 days before the 2000 presidential election. I ask Bush how he changed during the campaign. ``I started out as a cowboy,'' he says. ``And I'm now a statesman.'' ``Are you?'' I ask. For a second, he bristles at my impertinence, then says, ``If you have to ask, I think we're in trouble.'' There's a difference between a cowboy and a statesman. A cowboy is a rodeo performer or a wild loner roaming the land just looking out for himself. A statesman looks out for and leads us all. As he did in 2000, Bush went state to state in 2002, bringing the message to America that a vote for one of his hand-picked candidates was ``in their interest.'' Apparently, that tactic worked, for now he has a pliant Republican Congress, ready to do the bidding of a population acting only in its own self-interest. I thought we'd all grown a little since Sept. 11, that we've embraced our inner statesman. But have we? And if I have to ask, I think we're in trouble.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Betty Moose for twenty- one years of exemplary service to the San Lorenzo Unified School District as a member of the Board of Education. First elected to the Board in 1981, Betty was elected by her fellow Board members to serve as president of the Board from December 2000 to December 2001. Previously, she was vice-president and clerk of the Board. As a Board Member, Betty has been strongly committed to helping children in all aspects of their development and education. She has proudly represented the San Lorenzo Unified School District on numerous local and state committees and commissions. She is especially pleased with her accomplishments as a 17-year member of the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency and as a member of the San Leandro Collaborative for Children, Youth, and their Families. Betty has also worked on the San Lorenzo Unified School District Drug Advisory Council, the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Sheriff, the San Lorenzo Area Youth Advisory Commission, and the California School Boards Association Legislative Network. An active and dynamic community activist, Betty has served on the boards of many organizations. She has been president of the San Lorenzo Area Friends of the Library, the Gray Panthers of Southern Alameda County, and the San Lorenzo Heritage Society. She is a member and first co-chair of the National Women's Political Caucus of Southern Alameda County. Betty has also served as Vice-President of the Fairmont Hospital Campus Service League and the Church Women United of the Eden Area and Chair of the Alameda County Consumer Affairs Commission and the San Lorenzo Youth Resource Group. Betty's other memberships include the Eden Area League of Women Voters and the California Women's Association for Education reform. Betty has been married to Claude C. Moose for 56 years, and the couple has lived in San Lorenzo for 50 years. Their five children attended San Lorenzo schools, and graduated from Arroyo High School. I am honored to commend Betty Moose for her years of service to the San Lorenzo Board of Education. Although San Lorenzo will no longer have the benefit of Betty's wisdom and experience as a School Board member, I know she will continue to be involved in the community. We look forward to her continued contributions. I value her longtime friendship and appreciate all she does for others.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Berresford ``Berry'' Bingham on the completion of his second term as trustee of the Alameda Board of Education. An eight-year veteran on the school board, Berry has served the maximum number of terms allowed under district term limits. In 1998 he served as Board President, and he was chair of the District Base Reuse Committee, which monitored the impact on Alameda Schools of the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station. The First African-American elected to the Alameda Board of Education, Berry has served as president-elect of the California School Board Association (CSBA) Black Caucus and as a member of CSBA's statewide Parent Task Force. He is also the first Alameda School Board Member to serve in the CSBA Delegate Assembly, where he served four years. A long time advocate for quality education, Berry has served as Board Representative in negotiating joint agreements with the City of Alameda regarding increased developers' fees, as a Board Member of the Alameda Education Foundation, and as Board Representative to the Oakland- Alameda Regional Occupational Program Advisory Board. Also, he has served as a member of the Urban School Board Council in Sacramento. Berry is a passionate advocate for innovative educational programs, and he has pushed for district accountability in improving student performance. He holds the district to high academic standards for all students, and he is a tireless supporter of the role of early-childhood education in laying the foundation for academic success. A deeply caring, ``hands-on'' board member, Berry has made himself accessible to the community at any time of the day or night. When Alameda's Woodstock Child Development Center was at risk of closing due to a large budget deficit, Berry contributed his monthly Board stipend to help offset expenses. The father of three Alameda public school graduates, Berry is past PTA president of Woodstock Elementary School and Chipman Middle School. A courageous school board member, Berry never wavered in making decisions that put students first. I am honored to commend Berresford ``Berry'' Bingham for his years of dedicated service to the Alameda Board of Education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act being introduced by Democrats today. Democrats have made it a top priority to help out-of-work Americans struggling to make ends meet in this tough economy. Given the difficulty many are having finding work, extending unemployment benefits an additional 26 weeks in every State is a necessity. Our Democratic bill does this while also retroactively extending unemployment benefits to the 800,000 Americans that exhausted their benefits on December 28th. Democrats also provide an additional 7 weeks of benefits--on top of the 26-week extension--in those States especially hard hit by unemployment. Republican proposals for unemployment extension fall far short. They are seeking only to extend benefits a mere 13 weeks. It seems Republicans are more generous when it comes to tax breaks for their wealthy friends than for those who can really use a helping hand. The argument that any extension of unemployment benefits is too costly is just plain wrong. The Democratic proposal requires no new spending. It simply requires drawing on the trust fund that these workers and businesses have paid into for exactly this kind of economic downturn. As we reconvene the 108th Congress today, it will be up to the President and Congressional Republicans to extend unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans since the Republican party controls the House, Senate and the Presidency. I hope the President and his Republican friends in Congress will finally put their money where their mouths are and join Democrats to fully extend unemployment insurance for America's families. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act to achieve that goal.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on January 25, 2003 the Union City Police Department will celebrate the retirement of one of its finest officers, Lieutenant Don Schuitemaker. In his 28-year law enforcement career Lieutenant Schuitemaker has served as a model for school policing, trained other officers, and worked with juveniles and the narcotics unit. Lieutenant Schuitemaker served his entire career with the Union City Police Department. He joined the force on October 25, 1974, after attending the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Academy, one of the toughest in the State, where he achieved an expert marksman's medallion. Lieutenant Schuitemaker became part of the Union City Special Enforcement Response Team (SWAT), in 1978, and in 1984 he retired from the team as one of its leaders. In 1979, he became the department's first School Resource Officer, a new and innovative position. Based largely on Lieutenant Schuitemaker's success in that position, and in cooperation with the New Haven Unified School District, the number of School Resource Officers positions was increased. The Union City program has become a model for other law enforcement agencies to follow, partly as a result of Lieutenant Schuitemaker's accomplishments. Lieutenant Schuitemaker was promoted to sergeant in 1981, and served as Personnel and Training Manager before being selected to supervise the Southern Alameda County Narcotics Enforcement Team, a tri-city narcotics and vice task force. In 1989, he was selected to supervise the department's Juvenile Unit. In 1992, he transferred to patrol duty, where in addition to typical Watch Commander duties, he supervised the training of new officers as the Field Training Officer Program Supervisor. He later worked in the Traffic Unit, where he was instrumental in bringing back motorcycles as an effective enforcement tool, and as a true ``motor cop'' rode the motorcycle throughout his tour of duty. In 2000, he was promoted to Acting Lieutenant, and then to Lieutenant. During that time, Lieutenant Schuitemaker acted as a Field Operations Officer, overseeing the operation of the department's patrol section. He holds basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, and management Peace Officer Standards and Training certificates. I am honored to join the colleagues of Lieutenant Schuitemaker to commend his many years of dedicated and exemplary service to law enforcement. His commitment to excellence has left its irreplaceable mark on the Union City Police Department.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize San Leandro City Councilmember Garry Loeffler on his retirement after 8 years of distinguished service on the Council and a lifetime of leadership in the San Leandro Unified School District. First elected to the City Council in 1994, Loeffler has served on many committees dedicated to improving the city, including Disaster Council, Rules and Communications, School Liaison, Finance, Human Relations, and Facilities. He is a strong supporter of the Seniors Commission, and a founding member of the San Leandro Collaborative for Families and Youth. Beyond the Council, Loeffler is active on regional groups including the Association of Bay Area Governments and the League of California Cities. Dedicated to education, Loeffler was Principal or Vice-Principal of six of San Leandro's eight elementary schools during his 33-year career in education. Prior to his teaching career, he served active duty in the Army from 1963 until 1965. He remained in the Army Reserves until 1983, retiring as Lieutenant Colonel. I am honored to congratulate Garry Loeffler on his retirement. The City of San Leandro is a better place today thanks to his years of dedicated service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/ Conyers bill, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (H.R. 163), which would reinstate a national draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation. I ardently oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant sending our nation's young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism. Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq whatever the cost. Thanks to the President's brand of hotheaded bully diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and willing to bear the cost? I commend my colleagues Mr. Rangel and Mr. Conyers for their wisdom in authoring this bill. I'm honored to be an original cosponsor. This bill requires all young Americans--men and women between 18 and 26--to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President. Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor, the disadvantaged and minority populations. It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one--only one--has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won't be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad? If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans share in the sacrifice of war. It is time we truly comprehended the consequences. I urge my colleagues to support a universal draft which I believe will make votes for war much more real for many of my colleagues.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that while the opposition is willing to spend over a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy, they are unwilling to make good on their earlier promise to spend a thousandth of that amount to insure nursing home patients. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that many people will vote for this bill, but it cannot go unnoticed that the bill does not do nearly enough. It is a day late and a dollar short. It does not really improve Medicare and deal with many of the providers. It merely gives the administration, hopefully, the right to correct a glitch in the way physicians are reimbursed. There is some great discussion going on that they may already have that. The fight seems to be that correcting the physician glitch will cost 43 billion bucks and the question is, Do we get billed again for that or does the administration? And does it fit, or increase the deficit or does it not? So there is no guarantee that your physician friends will get their problem corrected. There is some guarantee that the hospitals, nursing homes, rural hospitals, teaching hospitals and the uninsured will absolutely get nothing. As to the welfare reform bill, there may be a lot of blame as to why we have not reauthorized it; but in any event, since 1996, the day it was passed, the funding for welfare reform, or welfare payments in this country has dropped by 11 percent. We are not doing anything to increase it and that is tragic. Welfare reform is more than a benefit check. It is child care and job training; it is education, the very foundations of self-sufficiency. It is too bad now, particularly that we do not worry about PAYGO anymore, that we cannot at least deal with the millions of poor families even a tenth as well as we deal with the very rich in the tax cuts that we have given them. Fourteen million families eligible for child care assistance do not receive it and millions of Americans out of work are struggling. We are not doing an adequate job in unemployment, where this bill really falls down. I will turn soon to my colleague from Maryland, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, to explain that to you. We have spent trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich and we are tonight going to talk about a mere billion dollars to extend unemployment benefits for only a small portion of the Americans who are struggling. Again, it is not fair and it is not adequate. There was a time when we in Congress could hold up our heads high and say that we took care of all Americans who were unable to fend for themselves. We are not even doing that. I think that it is tragic that here we are in the last hours of this Congress and we are attending to something that I do not think any bill at this time could correct all the problems. It is kind of a sad commentary that we have come this far and left so many people impoverished and unaided by a government that has given so much to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Dunn), the previous speaker, said it all. It is the least we can do, and it is a modest bill. We could do better. We should do better. We have never had a modest tax cut coming from the other side of the aisle. It is only modest when we try to help the least fortunate among us. So while one never looks a gift horse in the mouth, I am sure that the few people it does help will be happy. I intend to support the bill. I only wish that we could have had the leadership to do better for more people in this country.