Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

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 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. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Alameda County Sheriff, Charles Plummer for 50 years of exemplary law enforcement service. Sheriff Plummer's law enforcement career began in 1952 as a patrolman for the Berkeley Police Department. He was appointed to Operations Commander during the ``People's Park'' uprising in 1969 and coordinated the activities of 2,500 National Guardsmen and 750 mutual aid officers. Charles eventually rose through the ranks to become Acting Chief in 1974. In 1976, Charles Plummer was appointed Chief of Police for the Hayward Police Department. He obtained accreditation for the Hayward Police Department for excellence in police standards and procedures, the first police agency west of the Mississippi to do so and ninth in the nation. As Chief of Police, Charles' dedicated hard work and commitment led to the institution of many successful and worthwhile programs such as the Youth and Family Service Bureau; ComputerAided Dispatch System; Traffic Bureau; Crime Analysis Bureau; Stay-In-School Program; Traffic School; Crime Prevention Program and the Community Access Team. Charles Plummer was elected and swom in as Alameda County Sheriff in 1987. Since then, he has run unopposed and has been re-elected four times. Sheriff Plummer's most recent accomplishments include establishing contracting for medical services, the most cost-effective method of delivering first-rate medical care to inmates; developing three year contracts for security services with AC Transit District, Peralta College District and Oakland Airport; researching, developing, and implementing the Electronic Monitoring Program for minimum security imnates; and opening a state-of-the-art Office of Emergency Services building. Sheriff Plummer is a graduate of the FBI Academy, the National Executive Institute and the University of San Francisco where he earned his Bachelors Degree in public service. Sheriff Plummer's leadership and commitment to public service are inspiring to all of us. We ask Congress to join us and the constituents of the Ninth and Thirteenth Congressional Districts as we congratulate Sheriff Plummer on a tremendous 50 year career and wish him another 50 years to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the resolution, the amendment by my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the gentlewoman from California. The reason we should support her amendment is very simple. There is absolutely no evidence that any thinking person could give that says we are in any danger from Saddam Hussein today. You are in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince Georges County that we cannot find. If you vote against the Lee substitute, you are automatically sentencing, some of you old men who have never been in service or never worn a uniform like the last speaker, thousands of Americans to sure death. You know that the President wants blood. He wants to go to war. That is why we are going through this. And so you are giving an inexperienced, desperate young man in the White House the execution lever to kill thousands of Americans. Some of you did that and you could look at the 50,000 names on the wall down on the Mall. And is Vietnam still in business? The last time I looked. Don't do it again. Support the Lee amendment.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy. The bottom line is that I do not trust the President and his advisors. Make no mistake. We are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to a President who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. And it sets a precedent for our Nation or any nation to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus. Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a President who has been so callous as to proceed without reservation as if the war is of no real consequence. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics wrote, ``For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard, at a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy. Somebody,'' she wrote, ``should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.'' Pretty prophetic, Ms. Ivins. Let us not forget that our President, our Commander in Chief, has no experience or knowledge of war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard; and he reported years later that, at the height of the conflict in 1968, he did not notice any ``heavy stuff'' going on. So we have a President who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dug-out and Kashmir is a sweater. What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause? Is the President's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American? I submit the answer to these questions is no. Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The Administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion. Now, wealthy individuals will not pay; they have big tax cuts already. Corporations will not pay; they will just continue to cook the books and move overseas and send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids will not pay; their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W. Well, then, who will pay? School kids will pay. There will be no money to keep them from being left behind, way behind. Seniors will pay. They will pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and continue to rob the trust fund to pay for this capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable, and there will not be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it on a war. Working folks will pay through loss of jobs, job security, and bargaining rights. And our grandchildren will pay, through the degradation of our air and water quality, and the entire Nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights, and religious freedom in a rush to phoney patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right. The questions before the Members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong. What greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interests of our President. Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation above the President's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But I conclude that the only answer is to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5422, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. I am greatly troubled by this vote. I support the Amber Alert program as a vital means to prevent child abductions. I support improving the National Coordination of Amber Alert Communications to better track down perpetrators of these horrific crimes. If this bill had simply been about this important effort to protect the safety of our children, I would have supported it. But, House Republicans added provisions I cannot in good conscience support and will ultimately doom this bill when it comes before the Senate. I object to giving law enforcement unrestricted access to abuse fundamental privacy rights as this bill does. The Republicans added provisions giving the FBI unprecedented wiretap authority to engage in secret surveillance of our homes, even sexual acts between consenting adults. The Republicans added provisions imposing new mandatory minimum sentencing requirements despite these having been shown to be ineffective in deterring crime. Finally, Republicans added provisions expanding the number of crimes punishable under the death penalty. This is done despite evidence that many Americans have been wrongly sentenced to death. By including these controversial provisions, House Republicans blew the chance to help protect our children from predators. It is inexcusable that they knew that these provisions would make passage of this bill impossible in the Senate. Yet, they added them anyway in hopes of making this a political issue. Ultimately, the Republicans' aim was not to protect children. Their aim was to turn voters against Democrats in the Senate who support the Amber Alert program, but won't vote for a bill that compromises our constitutional rights. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this legislation. Lets send a message to the House Republicans that the safety of our children and the protection of our Constitutional rights are more important than partisan politics.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation prohibiting the words ``under God'' from being removed from the official Pledge of Allegiance as it is written in Federal law. Earlier this year, I voted against the Congressional resolution condemning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling the use of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. I believe the Court was right. The Court ruled on a case in which children were required to recite the pledge. Just as we should not bar anyone from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, we should not force anyone to recite words they do not believe. The Court was clear in affirming that the term ``under God'' was more than a casual colloquialism. The meaning of these words is only proven by Congress' religiously inspired crusade to chastise and even undo the Ninth Circuit's opinion. Congress ought to heed the Ninth Circuit Court and our Constitutional responsibility to respect the diversity of religious and personal belief in America. We should not legislate use of the term ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance when many proud Americans do not share this belief. We ought to instead reaffirm the notion of a ``nation indivisible,'' and a pledge that fully recognizes the shared beliefs and common aspirations of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to embrace this ideal, honor a basic principle of our Constitution, and vote no on this bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael L. Kanninen on his retirement July 16, 2002, after 18 years as Court Commissioner of the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. Prior to his appointment to the Superior Court, Supervisor Kanninen served as Commissioner of the Alameda County Municipal Court. When the two courts were unified in 1998, he was appointed to his current position. Presiding over criminal matters and civil cases, Commissioner Kanninen has handled arraignments, sentencings, traffic, jury trials, pretrials, and motions. After graduating from Hastings College of Law in San Francisco in 1971 and being admitted to the state bar in 1972, Commissioner Kanninen opened a small private practice, handling a wide array of cases. In 1982 he entered the Navy Reserves Judge Advocate General Corps, reaching the rank of Captain. This position was not Commissioner Kanninen's first experience with the Navy. After graduating from the University of Chicago with a B.A. in Political Science in 1961, Kanninen—who intended to join the foreign service—was recruited into the Navy. He served until 1966, earning a Vietnam Defense Ribbon with three stars and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. In 1996, Commissioner Kanninen was awarded the prestigious Meritorious Service Medal by President Bill Clinton for outstanding service from October 1990 through September 1995 in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He is a member of the California Court Commissioners Association, California Judges Association, and the American Judges Association. An active member of the community, Commissioner Kanninen sings with the Ohlone Community College Choir, and has served as president of the Second Chance Community Crisis Center, as District Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, and as President of the Newark Chamber of Commerce. I am honored to join the colleagues of Michael L. Kanninen in commending him for his many years of dedicated and exemplary service to his country, state, and community. His commitment to justice is an inspiration for all.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Banning Fenton, recipient of the City of Hayward Year 2002 Lifetime Award. Banning Fenton has worn many hats throughout his life—soldier, educator, volunteer, historian, and now, as this year's recipient of the City of Hayward Lifetime Award, he adds a ‘model citizen' hat to his collection. For the past ten years, Banning has focused his attention on helping the Hayward Arts Council and the Hayward Area Historical Society reach their goal to enhance the city and record and share its history. As part of his mission to make his city a better place, Banning has taught a class about Hayward's history, created a book of historical post cards depicting Hayward's past, and led historic walking tours of downtown Hayward. Most recently, Banning wrote a book, “Hayward: The Heart of the Bay.” Prior to becoming involved in the city as a volunteer, Banning taught in the Hayward Unified School District for over thirty years and for two years at Bishop Willis College in Uganda, East Africa. Banning assisted in the formation of the Elementary School Science Association of Northern California, serving as its president for two years. He also assisted elementary school teachers with presenting science workshops. After his retirement from the Hayward School District in 1981, Banning became a docent at Strybing Arboretum in Golden Gate Park and developed plant guides for the Hayward Sensory Garden and Ardenwood Park in Fremont. He was also active in the formation of the Friends of the Hayward Public Library, served on the board of the Ohlone Audobon Society, and was president of the local retired teacher's association for two years. I am honored to join the colleagues of Banning Fenton in commending him for his 53 years of service to the city of Hayward and to congratulate him on receiving the Lifetime Award. Banning Fenton's dedicated work as an educator and volunteer committed to providing the best to the city of Hayward is a true inspiration.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. This bill is an assault on the Constitution's fundamental separation between church and state. It was crafted with the single purpose of giving right-wing religious groups--like the Christian Coalition--a special advantage in the political process. It would allow them to promote their narrow political agenda while exploiting the tax-exempt status traditionally reserved for non-partisan religious and charitable organizations. Various types of organizations are allowed to be tax exempt because they do not engage in or sponsor partisan political activity. This bill would grant religious organizations a special right to maintain that tax-exempt status while freely engaging in partisan politics. Supporters of H.R. 2357 have cloaked the real intent of the bill in the blatant falsehood that religious leaders cannot speak on moral and political issues. This right is freely exercised and clearly protected by the Constitution. In addition to speaking freely from the pulpit, members of the clergy can endorse partisan candidates, publicly express their opinion on political issues, and contribute their time and money to any political campaign they choose. Under their current tax-exempt status, religious organizations are allowed to work in a non-partisan capacity to register voters, provide voter education, and encourage people to go to the polls on Election Day. A wide array of religious leaders have spoken out in opposition to this bill because they don't want the integrity of their institutions undermined by partisan politics. This bill puts partisanship ahead of piety in the nation's churches, synagogues, and mosques. It allows religious institutions to endorse political candidates, broadcast issue ads, conduct voter mobilization, and engage in political fundraising. This would blow a gaping hole through the landmark campaign finance reform law enacted this year. In allowing tax-exempt and tax-deductible money to be given for political purposes, churches would now be allowed to launder soft-money contributions. Many churches--those that are not incorporated--would be exempt from campaign finance laws altogether. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this cynical scheme to breach the separation of church and state and give special interests a blank check to undermine our democracy. Vote no on H.R. 2357. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4600, legislation that would undermine the right of patients and their families to seek appropriate compensation and penalties when they, or a loved one, are harmed or even killed by an incompetent health care provider. At best, this bill is a wrong-headed approach to the problem of rising malpractice health insurance costs. At worst, it is a bill designed to protect bad doctors and other health care providers from being held accountable for their actions. Under any scenario, the bill is harmful to consumers and should be defeated. The Republican Leadership has once again brought us a bill that favors their special interests at the expense of quality health care. Doctors, hospitals, HMOs, health insurance companies, nursing homes, and other health care providers would all love to see their liability risk reduced. This bill meets that need. Unfortunately, it does so solely on the backs of America's patients. Supporters of this bill would have you believe that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving health care costs through the roof. In fact, for every $100 spent on medical care in 2000, only 56 cents could be attributed to medical malpractice costs--that's one half of one percent. So, supporters are spreading false hope that reducing the cost of medical malpractice would reduce the cost of health care in our country by any measurable amount. It won't. What supporters of this bill do not want you to understand is how bad this bill would be for consumers. The provisions of this bill would prohibit juries and courts from providing awards they believe are appropriate relative to the harm done. H.R. 4600 caps non-economic damages. By setting an arbitrary cap on this portion of an award, the table is tilted against seniors, women, children, and people with disabilities. Medical malpractice awards break down into several categories. Economic damages are awarded based on how one's future income is impacted by the harm caused by medical malpractice. There are no caps on this part of the award. But by capping non-economic damages, this bill would result in someone, without tremendous earning potential--a housewife or a senior for example--finding their award much lower than that of a young, successful businessman for identical injuries. Is that fair? I don't think so. The limits on punitive damages are severe. Punitive damages are seldom awarded in malpractice cases, but their threat is an important deterrent. And, in cases of reckless conduct that cause severe harm, it is irresponsible to forbid such awards. The bill prohibits the requirement of a lump sum payment to an injured party which allows the defendants to continue to reap interest benefits while holding the award. And, this prohibition on lump sum awards could mean that injured victims who can no longer work do not have the funds available to meet their needs. Why should the decision of how to award the penalty be taken from the court which is in the best position to make that determination since they know the details of the particular case? Republicans claim to be advocates for states rights. Yet, this bill directly overrides the abilities of states to create and enforce medical malpractice laws that meet the needs of their residents. The issue of rising malpractice insurance costs is a very legitimate concern for America's health care providers. I would happily work with colleagues to develop legislation to help change that. For example, we could look at better ways of spreading the risk of medical malpractice insurance across a wider spectrum of doctors. Another option that has been discussed is to experience rate malpractice insurance so that providers' premiums better reflect their own professional experience. These are just a few examples of steps that could be taken. But, the important difference between those proposals and the one before us today is that those changes don't harm patients. Medical malpractice costs are an easy target. My Republican colleagues like to simplify it as a fight between America's doctors and our nation's trial lawyers. That is a false portrayal. Our medical malpractice system is a vital consumer protection. The bill before us drastically weakens the effectiveness of our nation's medical malpractice laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this wrong-headed and harmful approach to reducing the cost of malpractice premiums. It's the wrong solution for America's patients and their families.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join with my colleagues in demanding that Congress consider comprehensive hate crimes legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in signing this discharge petition to bring H.R. 1343, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to the floor for an immediate vote. H.R. 1343 will expand the scope of the current Federal Hate Crimes Law by including crimes motivated by bias against a victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. It will help crack down on hate crimes by providing technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to State and local law enforcement. It will also make grants available to State and local governments who have incurred great costs in investigating and prosecuting these crimes. Unlike the Republican Leadership, I do not see violence based on prejudice as some abstract legal concept. I disagree that hate crimes cannot be discerned from other types of violence and thus do not deserve special penalties under the law. Crimes based on hate must be viewed for their real consequence. Hate crimes are not just violent acts perpetrated upon an individual because of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. This is wrong enough. But these crimes are also intended to terrorize a whole community of people, to let them know they too are susceptible to violence solely because of who they are or what they believe. Hate crimes are also a direct assault upon the fundamental ideals of our Nation. They undermine our basic commitment to freedom, equality, and justice. They unbind the bonds of community and imperil the common character—and common decency—we aspire to as Americans. The Republican Leadership ignores this greater threat alongside the real life impact these crimes can have on our citizens and communities. In my own district—one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse in the Nation—hate crimes are not merely a cause for worry and concern, they are a reality. In each of the communities I represent, people of different origins and backgrounds, religions and cultures live together as neighbors. But, there is always the prospect that they will be faced with acts of discrimination and violence. Some of my constituents in Hayward have responded to this threat by launching their own effort against racial discrimination called the No Room for Racism campaign. They passed an ordinance condemning hatred and discrimination in their city and have inspired similar efforts in other communities. Their effort is the basis of the No Room for Racism resolution I introduced in Congress this year. These constituents would tell each of us in this House that a comprehensive hate crimes law is a necessity—not only to protect them from senseless reprisals, but also to uphold the character and decency of the larger community in which they live and raise their children. September 11th has led to many pronouncements that Americans have come to reaffirm the moral imperatives on which our Nation was founded. But, its aftermath has also shown the immediacy of taking real steps to protect people's lives. Already, Federal authorities have seen a rise in violence against Arab Americans with nearly 5,000 documented incidents and several murders motivated by prejudice. This is in addition to countless acts of violence that are reported every year against African Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, gays and lesbians, and women among other minorities. The facts show that it is time that we enforce a no tolerance policy on acts of hate. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our Nation's ideals, to stand united against hatred and intolerance, and demand action on this important hate crimes legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to both H. Res. 540 and H. Res. 544. We desperately need to pass meaningful pension security reform. But the plan put forward by Republicans flatly does not pass the test. These resolutions simply call for urging the Senate to comply with the Republican's ill-conceived reforms and then make them permanent. Republicans can chastise the Senate all they want or put hard hats on corporate lobbyists to make people think they're listening to average, everyday American workers. But it won't change the simple fact that Republican pension reform just isn't enough. In fact, these resolutions are so meaningless that they can only be viewed for what they are: a temporary distraction from the real reform the Republicans have failed to deliver. President Bush has said, that if ``It's okay for the sailor, it ought to be okay for the captain.'' Democrats agree with the President's rhetoric and have taken it a step further in offering a bill--of which I am an original cosponsor--that truly holds corporations accountable. The Republicans simply allow corporate captains to sink their own companies and let workers and investors go down with the ship. Corporate executives should be required to face the same rules on stock options and deferred compensation plans as apply to rank-and-file employees. The bill that the Democrats propose would provide workers the same rights to buy or sell company stock in their 401(k) plans as corporate executives have in being permitted to buy or sell company stock obtained through stock options. President Bush claims, ``It is unfair for workers to be denied the ability to sell stock when executives are free to sell stocks . . .'' and again Democrats completely agree. Corporations rarely restrict their executives' capacity to buy and sell stock from stock options, but many corporations restrict their rank-and-file workers from buying and selling the corporation's stock in their 401(k) plans. Democrats would eliminate this double standard by ensuring that CEOs adhere to the same restrictions as employees in the buying and selling of their company stock. Our bill would impose tax penalties on executives who sell stock acquired from stock options if the sale violates the restrictions rank-and-file employees face in their own 401(k) plans. Executives don't need any more perks than they already receive. But it's high time this Congress listen to the calls of the rank-and-file workers who want their pensions protected from unscrupulous corporate thieves. The resolutions before us today are an insult to American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H. Res. 540 and H. Res. 544.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the misnamed Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. It should really be entitled the First Step Toward Outlawing Abortion Act. At a time when my own state of California is leading the nation in enacting the most progressive laws protecting a woman's right to choose, Republicans in Congress continue to lead their ill-conceived, extremist crusade to stamp out this fundamental freedom. The Republicans claim that their bill is simply a clarification of existing law. They are wrong. Passage of this legislation would undermine the sensible requirement that pregnant women be given a full explanation of their medical options regarding their pregnancy. Supporters of H.R. 4961 are not trying to clarify the law today, they are trying to inch us closer and closer--through every legislative vehicle they can find--toward a time when abortions are outlawed. If this bill becomes law, pregnant women that go to a doctor, hospital, clinic, or other health care provider opposed to abortion may well leave without a full understanding of their medical options. Not only is it wrong to deny patients a full disclosure of their medical options, it is unethical and fundamentally un-American. If this bill becomes law, the federal government will directly interfere with every state's right to structure their Medicaid programs in the way they deem most appropriate. Current law already prohibits Medicaid programs from performing abortions except in strictly limited circumstances. This bill would go even further by overriding the ability of states to ensure that women treated by Medicaid providers are at least told of their full medical options, even if they can't get financial assistance to access those services. If this bill becomes law, family planning clinics across the country that are funded through the Title X program would no longer be required to give a pregnant woman information about all her medical options. In fact, they could withhold such information even in cases of rape or incest where the option of an abortion may be most appropriate for the woman involved. Existing law contains a conscience clause protection that assures that providers opposed to abortion do not have to provide them. Therefore, there is no need for this legislation. This bill goes so far as to grant providers who are opposed to abortion the leeway to deny informing their patients of what may be a needed medical option. It's not sensible medicine, nor is it appropriate public health policy. There is absolutely no valid reason that this bill should be enacted. I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposition to H.R. 4961 and to stand firm in our commitment that women must be provided all of the medical options so that they can make informed, personal decisions about their pregnancies.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of America leading a strong and sustained diplomatic effort with our partners in the international community to confront Saddam Hussein. I am proud to join my colleague and friend Barbara Lee--among many others--in introducing a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. work through the United Nations to assure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction rather than pursue a unilateral military attack. Last week, President Bush finally listened to the wise counsel of the American people and engaged the United Nations on Iraq's failure to comply with its resolutions. While I applaud the President's effort to reach out to our partners in the United Nations, he seriously undermined the cause of diplomacy by threatening unilateral action if the UN did not meet America's demands for military action. I urge the President to heed his own words and allow the United Nations to live up to its responsibility to hold Iraq accountable without forcing hostile military action that threatens America and the world. I strongly question the President's assertion that immediate military action is necessary. The evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq is not there. The Administration's so-called secret briefings have provided Congress with paltry information they could have as easily read in the New York Times. Our intelligence agencies will have to provide something more compelling than generalized claims that Iraq could have some nuclear capability in six months to seven years. They don't even know if Iraq even has the capability of striking the United States with any weapon at this time. Without concrete evidence, I do not want our President to run off willy-nilly and risk the lives of America's young men and women. Especially, when the President has not shown the resolve to seek the evidence to justify such action or to pursue a peaceful solution to the situation. The President has also ignored the track record of past weapons inspectors in Iraq. Between 1991 and 1998, they were successful in destroying large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He has dismissed Iraq's offer to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq unconditionally. Even worse are the statements from the Administration that the United States should attack Iraq, even if Saddam Hussein were proven to be compliant with existing UN resolutions. As reported by today's Washington Post, the Administration is even trying to suppress the scientific analysis of government experts who refute their claims that equipment sought by Iraq would provide the capability of producing nuclear weapons. Am I to believe that the President has made waging war with Iraq a foregone conclusion? I think Americans deserve more serious consideration on the part of our President before we plunge our nation into war and risk the lives of their loved ones. Should the President compel Congress to go to war, the United States risks setting an international precedent that the mere suspicion that a nation may soon possess weapons of mass destruction is reason enough to preemptively attack them or force a regime change. Who are we to attack next? Iran? North Korea? China? If we should remove Saddam Hussein from power, we must consider the consequences. Secretary Rumsfeld has said it is up to the Iraqi people to confront the challenges of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. This would likely ignite a civil war between the Shiites, the Kurds, the Turks, and other ethnic groups that make up that nation. Do we want these warring groups to gain access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, should they exist? Is it worth risking the stability of the Middle East or the world? Given the need for an extended U.S. presence there, would our invasion be worth the price at home? It would likely cost over $60 billion to deploy our troops and sustain a force of up to 100,000 U.S. troops in one year alone. These troops would likely have to stay for up to 5-10 years as part of an international peacekeeping force. Rebuilding a war torn Iraq would also likely cost roughly $50-100 billion. With deficit spending already running at over $150 billion this year, these military costs would create a monumental budget crisis when we've yet to secure basic domestic priorities like a prescription drug benefit or shoring up the solvency of Social Security. Finally, by acting with the tepid support of the international community, protracted U.S. involvement in Iraq could threaten the support we have gotten from Middle East countries in our war on terrorism. It could easily ignite long-standing discontent among the Arab people that would only fuel a more aggressive terrorist offensive here in the United States. For these reasons, I believe we must proceed wholeheartedly with responsible and sustained diplomacy. I am proud to sponsor Barbara Lee's resolution that underscores the value and necessity of this effort. The President must lead the United Nations to fulfill its mission without unnecessary bloodshed. I urge my colleagues to join with us to provide him this mandate.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Res. 525, urging House and Senate conferees to approve a final welfare bill. It is vital that Congress reach agreement on welfare so that vulnerable families have the help and assistance they need to become self-sufficient. But, House Republicans are putting politics ahead of people. They are offering this resolution to taunt Senate Democrats for not rolling over and rubberstamping their draconian welfare bill. I applaud Senate Democrats for taking a careful look at the challenges facing Americans struggling in poverty. We need to pass legislation that fixes many of the flaws in welfare reform. I am glad Senate Democrats are there to protect these families against Republicans that are little more than foxes guarding the hen house. House Republicans are declaring that the 1996 welfare reform bill is already a success. They tout the welfare bill they passed this year as an even better improvement. Yet, there are still too many families struggling to get out of poverty. There are too many families without safe and adequate child care. And Republicans have largely ignored the vast number of people who face insurmountable barriers in moving from welfare to work. The bill passed by House Republicans ignores the last six years of careful study in applying the same old ideological prescriptions to very real flaws in welfare reform. They are focused on kicking people off welfare without any concern for whether or not these Americans have jobs that pay a living wage. Their bill fails to expand access to job training, education or rehabilitative services needed for them to maintain stable employment. The American people want results, not political gamesmanship. Vulnerable families struggling on welfare deserve meaningful help and a fighting chance to succeed. Let's not give Republicans an opportunity to score political points at their expense. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this ridiculous resolution. This is nothing more than the Republicans pandering to their wealthy contributors six weeks before the election. How timely! This resolution is a complete waste of time. The House has already passed a bill to provide permanent repeal of the estate tax earlier this year, despite my opposition. Now, my constituents back home will ask. ``Why did you need yet another resolution for something that the House has already addressed?'' The only truthful answer is that the Republicans can't agree among themselves on how to proceed with spending bills this year so they are padding the floor schedule with meaningless drivel like this to make it appear that Congress is doing its job. The American people ought to be outraged! Rather than addressing the critical appropriations bills to keep the government running, the GOP would rather debate this non-binding, meaningless resolution. If the GOP doesn't want to work on appropriations bills, we have 40 million disabled and elderly who depend on Medicare and have been clamoring for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. We could address that issue. Or what about the solvency of Social Security? there are critical domestic issues facing this Congress--and facing millions of Americans--that ought to be addressed today. Repeal of the estate tax will only help the wealthiest one percent of those who receive inheritance, or around 23,000 estates per year. Congress is seeing declining federal income receipts; is being asked to fund a pending war in Iraq; improve security here at home; and must still address the needs of working families. We have much bigger issues than a tax that will affect 23,000 wealthy estates. Let's take our oath of office a bit more seriously and get back to the issues that matter. I urge my colleagues to reject this absurd resolution and vote no on H. Res. 524.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1701, the so-called Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act. This bill has nothing to do with protecting consumers. It doesn't help the most financially vulnerable Americans that often rely on rent- to-own agreements just to afford some of the most basic necessities for their families. This bill is more about letting the $5 billion dollar a year rent-to- own industry get out from under strict consumer protection standards in force in several states. This shouldn't come to anyone's surprise considering the Republican leadership's track record of giving corporate interests a free ride at the expense of America's working families. Proponents of this bill are right in pointing out that rent-to-own agreements are not subject to any federal standard. But, their effort to create a new national standard is severely misguided. Not only does it overturn tougher consumer protection laws already in place in most states. But, it will also prevent some states from regulating these transactions altogether. In addition, this bill doesn't include important disclosure requirements mandating that rent-to-own businesses inform consumers of the total cost of entering into these agreements. This undermines the basic principle of a free market by barring Americans from shopping competitively and making informed choices. We should do more to demand accountability from the rent-to-own industry. This bill simply gives them a shelter to play games with financing gimmicks and impose hidden fees on vulnerable consumers. I think Congress owes more to America's working families than to conspire in another corporate scam. I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and vote down this misguided bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of CalPERS' highest-ranking officials, Mr. James H. Gomez, as he ends his tenure as the Deputy Executive Officer. James Gomez was appointed to the position of Deputy Executive Officer of CalPERS in December of 1996, a position that is second in command and serves as the chief operating officer under the CEO. As chief operating officer, James Gomez was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the $145 billion retirement system. He led the implementation of CalPERS' strategic plan to ensure the system is a world-class administrator of retirement and health benefits for public employees. While at CalPERS, James Gomez made his mark by improving customer service with the Customer Call Center which significantly improves the ability to provide solutions to members' problems. He also led the effort to obtain $7 billion in state funding to benefit state and public school employees. The imaging project he oversaw allowed 51 million records to be imaged for increased record efficiency. CalPERS is a more effective and efficient organization due to the hard work and dedication of James Gomez. James Gomez has been a public servant for close to 30 years working for the State Department of Benefit Payments, State Department of Social Services, California Department of Corrections, the County of Santa Clara, and most recently CalPERS. His dedication to public service kept him with the California State Department of Social Services over several years where he was tasked with ensuring that all children and foster care services were difficult to enter into but simple to leave. James Gomez is the recipient of many distinguished awards and recognitions, including the American Society of Public Administrators and the Outstanding Public Administrator Award. In recognition for his contributions, he has earned the One to One, Leadership Award, Share the Path Program, along with other such distinguishable awards. I am honored to join the employees of CalPERS in commending James Gomez for his many years in public service. His dedication to the community has been great and his commitment to the employees of California will serve as a model for others to follow.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2002, the Union City Police Department will celebrate the retirement of one of its finest officers, Management Analyst II Lynne Mattos. In her 22-year career, Lynne has served the Union City Police Department in many capacities, working as a Crime Prevention Specialist, Community Relations Manager, and Management Analyst II. Lynne Shelton was instrumental in developing Union City's Neighborhood and Business Watch Programs, the Police Department's False Alarm Program, and Crime Prevention's National Night Out. Lynne was involved in organizing almost all of the special events sponsored through city/police department collaborations, including the Gladiola Festivals in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the prestigious awarding of ``All-America City'' in 1999, and ``WinterFest,'' an annual event to raise funding for many of the city's community-based service groups. The recipient of countless accolades and letters of appreciation from citizens, businesses, Boy Scout troops, Lions Clubs, homeowners associations, and the school district, Lynne Mattos has made a lasting impression on the entire community. Lynne is also active on the city's Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and has been a member of the city's Planning Commission since February 1990. I am honored to join the colleagues of Lynne Mattos in commending her for her many years of dedicated service. Her commitment to excellence has left its irreplaceable mark on the entire Union City community.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the one hundred and ninety-one nations that participated in last week's United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development. I hope that the cooperative efforts of these nations will begin to solve the mounting problems that have been brought to bear by decades of rampant consumption, resource depletion, and overpopulation. I applaud a major victory of the conference: China's decision to join the Kyoto Protocol and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. I welcome Russia's intention to do the same very soon in the near future. But, I am left with profound disappointment at the United States continued failure to offer our leadership and cooperation in this effort. The United States, absence at the World Summit on Sustainable Development was not only a setback to America's leadership in the world, it was indicative of the Bush Administration's lack of commitment to solving a problem for which we are a major cause. Fossil fuel consumption and Carbon Dioxide (C02) emissions--the major contributors to greenhouse gas and global warming--are on the rise, most notably in the United States and Asia. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are the primary source of CO2, emissions in the world. In fact, CO2, emissions in North America have grown steadily over the last decade, nearly 16 percent between 1990 and 2000. Meanwhile, these emissions have declined in the former Soviet Union, Europe and Japan. The World Summit was a unique opportunity for nations to cooperatively address what scientists have long stated are the serious consequences of global climate change. Major glaciers and arctic sea ice are retreating, causing sea levels to rise. Rainfall has increased in the Northern Hemisphere leading to unexpected flooding and related disasters. Insurance payments for flood and storm damage rose by $28 billion in just a decade. Meanwhile, droughts and subsequent poverty and famine have been devastating large parts of Asia and Africa. The President's failure to attend the summit--like his withdrawal of the United States support for the Kyoto treaty--puts the world's environment and economic well being in jeopardy, even as nations forge on without us. The President's indifference only isolates us from our allies and alienates the developing world. Indeed, the root causes of global climate change are inextricably tied to the economic and social conditions in which much of the world lives. We cannot ignore the lack of econonmic opportunity and poverty that help breed extremism and hatred toward the United States. The World Summit was a profound opportunity for us to lend a compassionate hand to improving lives of people throughout the world. The United States, as the only remaining superpower, is expected to show leadership on all issues affecting the global community. The President's decision to abandon a leadership role on global climate change and sustainable economic development, I fear, will severely harm our standing in the world--not to mention the environment--for years to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5203, the so-called Education Affordability Act. This education bill is a cynical, backdoor attempt to create a voucher program. it drains our public schools of needed resources so Republicans can give tax breaks to the 10% of families who send their children to private schools. What about the other 90% of American families whose kids attend public schools? This bill does nothing to address their concerns. We ought to be down here today making sure our public schools have the resources they need. We ought to be finding ways to fully fund last year's ``Leave No Child Left Behind'' law. Our public schools have critical needs that Republicans want to ignore. We ought to be making funding available for local schools to hire more quality teachers and reduce class sizes. We ought to be providing money to modernize our schools and renovate outdated and unsafe facilities. More than $300 billion is needed for school construction alone. That $300 billion cannot be met without significant help from the Federal Government. But, it will be hard to keep students from attending classes in trailers or dilapidated school buildings if Republicans pass this bill. If concern for public schools isn't reason enough to vote down this legislation, then consider its effect on our budget. Today's bill takes the fiscally irresponsible step of making part of last year's trillion- dollar tax cut permanent. This will only balloon our rapidly expanding budget deficit. We ought to be more sensible. We ought to stand up for real priorities and the qualify of public schools. I urge my colleagues to take a stand for public education and vote no on H.R. 5203.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, As critics predicted, Bush's goal to make faith-based institutions the primary delivers of social services has led to them promoting their religious beliefs with government money. Today, the Washington Post reported that a Louisiana federal judge ruled that the state illegally used federal money to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education programs. How many more examples do we need before Bush abandons this failed social policy? Judge Orders Changes in Abstinence Program (By Ceci Connolly) A federal judge in Louisiana ruled yesterday that the state illegally used federal money to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education programs, a decision that could jeopardize President Bush's ambitions for expanding the effort nationwide. U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. ordered the state to stop giving money to individuals or organizations that ``convey religious messages or otherwise advance, religion'' with tax dollars. He said there was ample evidence that many of the groups participating in the Governor's Program on Abstinence were ``furthering religious objectives.'' Using government money to distribute Bibles, stage prayer rallies outside clinics that provide abortions and perform skits with characters that preach Christianity violate the Constitution's separation of church and state, he ruled. One group in its monthly report talked about using the Christmas message of Mary as a prime example of the virtue of abstinence. ``December was an excellent month for our program,'' the Rapides Station Community Ministries said in a report quoted by the court. ``We were able to focus on the virgin birth and make it apparent that God's desire [sic] sexual purity as a way of life.'' Gov. Mike Foster (R) expressed dismay over the decision and said he would review the state's legal options. ``It's a sad day when such a worthwhile program is attacked by the very people who are supposed to protect the interests of the citizens of Louisiana,'' he said. The suit, filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union, was the first legal challenge to abstinence-only programs created under the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Bush has asked Congress to extend the $50 million-a-year program and increase other federal abstinence grants from $40 million this year to $73 million next year. Cities, states or organizations that receive the federal grants must use the money to teach abstinence as the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Supporters say abstinence education helps youngsters build character and develop the skills to ``say no to sex.'' Grant recipients may not discuss contraception, except in the context of failure rates of condoms. ``Today's decision should stand as a wake-up call that this practice is unacceptable,'' said Catherine Weiss, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. The ruling was also a victory for liberals and public health advocates who argue that abstinence-until-marriage programs are unrealistic and put young people in danger of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only ``is not a public health program,'' said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, which lobbies for broad-based sex education. ``This is either ideology or religious instruction trying to pass itself off as public health.'' The most recent, detailed analyses have concluded ``the jury is still out'' when it comes to teaching abstinence, said health researcher Douglas Kirby. Wagoner called on policymakers to conduct audits of the abstinence programs similar to the current federal investigation of other types of sex education and HIV prevention programs. Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the administration ``remains deeply committed'' to both abstinence-only programs and faith-based initiatives. Weiss and Wagoner said that the misuse of abstinence money went beyond Louisiana and that they had begun to collect evidence of other instances of proselytizing. Many have close ties to the anti-abortion movement, they said. Three weeks ago, HHS awarded $27 million in new abstinence grants to numerous organizations with religious affiliations. Weiss acknowledged that it is constitutional to funnel tax money to religious groups as long as the money is used for secular purposes. During a court hearing last month, Dan Richey, head of the Louisiana program, testified that the state had stopped subsidizing religious activities or overwhelmingly religious groups. Porteous acknowledged the changes but added, ``The Court does, however, feel the need to install legal safeguards to ensure the GPA [Governor's Program on Abstinence] does not fund `pervasively sectarian' institutions in the future.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Dan Rostenkowski, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that I commend to my colleagues. It follows. In 1998, I served as Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. Essentially, I was the pharmacist who filled his prescription for the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. I share his sentiment that if that law had stayed in effect, we would not be here more than a decade later trying to figure out who to get a prescription drug benefit into Medicare--it would already be there. The law may not have been perfect, but we had a drug benefit and we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. We Filled the Prescription I have a prescription drug plan for you. Here's what it does: It pays 80 percent of drug costs after a $710 deductible has been met, and it costs a relatively modest amount--a $4- a-month premium for 40 percent of beneficiaries and a maximum of $800 a year for the richest 5 percent. It's never happen, you say. Well, it already has. Just such a plan was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1988. Unfortunately, mistakes were made in implementing the plan, and it was repealed a year later. But the concept behind it is worth another look today, as we contemplate huge new federal expenditures for prescription drugs for the elderly. Of course, if we attempted something similar now, the numbers would be different. Because of inflation, the basic monthly premium would be nearly $8, the maximum premium would be in the $1,600 range and the deductible would rise to nearly $1,100. It's important to note that the original program was designed to cost the federal government nothing. It was to be self-financed by the elderly population. That was a big issue back then, when people were concerned about big deficits and the need to bring the budget back into balance. Priorities have changed. Today we see dueling plans that would, over the next decade, cost our government $350 billion to $800 billion. That's not chump change, especially considering that the Medicare program is already unstable and expected to run out of money fairly early in this century unless some big changes are made. In today's free-spending atmosphere, the promised benefits are also a bit more liberal than those offered by the old program, kicking in after only $100-$250 is spent, depending on the plan. Obviously my successors have learned one lesson: Proposing an insurance program that doesn't promise benefits to most of the people who pay premiums can be a provocative and dangerous act. Nevertheless, the odds are very long indeed against any of the plans now on Capitol Hill actually becoming law. This is especially true for the GOP plan, which requires private sector providers to bid. Some of us remember what happened when we invited private firms to provide Medicare coverage: Few took the challenge, and many that did failed to stay the course, deterred by government reimbursement that was less generous than what they had anticipated. The plan we passed 14 years ago providing Medicare drug coverage was repealed by legislation signed in 1989 by the first President Bush. I'm convinced that had we stayed the course until 1992, when the benefits would have been fully phased in, the program would still be operating. One of the mistakes we made was collecting the premiums immediately while adding the benefits only slowly. This was the fiscally responsive thing to do, of course--ensuring that money would be available to pay the promised benefits. But it was a big political mistake. To be sure, if the program we enacted had survived, it would have changed over time, much as the tax system changes or the Medicare program has evolved in response to cost pressures. Perhaps it would be a bit less generous. Maybe there would be a formula to push patients toward the drugs that are most cost effective; the government has gotten quite sophisticated at squeezing other Medicare providers to as to maintain benefits while controlling cost increases. But in any event there would be a program, however imperfect, helping a lot of people who need the aid-- something we don't have now. Personally, I'd be surprised to see any Medicare drug benefits paid until the latter half of this decade, if then. And if the fiscal health of Medicare declines further, the entire issue may be put on hold. More than 300 House members voted for the prescription drug program in 1988. More than 300 voted for repeal the following year, a drastic switch strong enough to induce political whiplash. In the interim, I was reminded once again of how no good deed goes unpunished: Unhappy seniors blockaded my car when I tried to exit a meeting called to discuss the issue. That was temporarily embarrassing for me, but they're the ones who are feeling the long-term pain. I suspect they wonder where the benefits are now that they need them. After that failure, the issue became politically radioactive and went virtually untouched by Congress for a dozen years. Will Washington be smart enough to learn from the past so that America's elderly will get the help they need in the future? My fear is that we're witnessing an unrealistic debate that will, at best, yield nothing more than a crop of partisan and empty talking points.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4965, ``The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.'' Today's debate on this issue is offensive. It's an insult to millions of women in this country and political grandstanding at its worst. For each of the past three sessions of Congress, the House has debated and passed this bill. It has never become law. The Supreme Court has already ruled this type of ban to be unconstitutional having struck down an almost identical Nebraska law. The truth is ``partial birth abortion'' is a political term, not a medical one. Republicans have included a fuzzy definition in this bill that could take away protected representative freedoms. At best, they would ban what is almost always an emergency procedure performed to protect the health of a mother. This is highly personal decision--and an emotionally difficult one-- that is best left to a woman and her doctor. Congress shouldn't tie the hands of physicians by making it illegal for them to make sound medical decisions that could save their patient's life. This should not be a political issue! We ought to be respectful of the deeply personal tragedies involved. Instead, Republicans exploit them for political purposes. They jubilantly jump on this issue like it's a new Tonka truck at Christmas, when they ought to consider what this experience is like for the women involved. They ought to think about the real facts, not just the extreme rhetoric and gory pictures on the latest Christian Coalition voting card. Most of the women involved are expectant mothers that encounter medical difficulties near the end of their pregnancy and must undergo this painful, but safe procedure to save their life. Others are the victims of sexual assault who often don't come to terms with their pregnancy until well into the second trimester. Imagine the painful process of determining whether you will bear the child of someone who has raped and assaulted you. These women have a right to make this choice. This bill provides no exemption for this basic freedom. Indeed, this bill is yet another deceptive hoax in a protracted assault against the rights of women and all Americans. We must never let the right to choose be taken away just as we must never allow another back alley abortion to ever take place in this country again. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the freedom to choose and vote no on this cynical and senseless bill.