Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to remind the gentleman from Arizona that he should tell the seniors in Mesa that he has lined his own pockets with a benefit for Members of Congress which is 50 percent more generous than what he is willing to give the seniors in his home State, and that he and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted against eliminating cost sharing for preventive benefits for seniors. Now that again shows us how much they care for the seniors in Hartford or in Florida or in Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the Members that both the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted against increasing payments to hospitals, voting against filling the Republican gap in the drug coverage, and voted against requiring drug companies to offer real discounts. So much that they care for the senior citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, pending recognizing the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for 2 minutes, I would just like to remind the Members that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) recalls that it was the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who voted in committee not to increase money for nursing homes. She voted against eliminating co-pays for home health care. She voted against limiting the premiums to seniors, and she voted against giving seniors a choice of going to any pharmacy. So much for her concern for the seniors.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that I suggested that the Republicans were in the pocket of the insurance companies, and I was about to say that when they go to bed with the pharmaceutical industry, they get a bill like this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who realizes that the National Community Pharmacists Association states that the Republican bill penalizes beneficiaries desiring to continue their trusted relationship with their pharmacists and access to valuable pharmacist services. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for 15 seconds.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), pending which I would point out to my distinguished colleagues that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) both voted against protecting low-income seniors from higher copayments and the gaping gap in the Republican plan. So much they care for the senior citizens.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that every Republican, including the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), voted against assuring seniors that they could get the drugs that their doctor prescribes, because there is nothing in the Republican bill that guaranties the drugs that a doctor might prescribe. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would explain, when one sells out to the insurance industry, we get the Republican bill. They free up any resources that go to the Hartford Insurance Companies. The truth is that the average senior in this country spends $3,059 on drugs. Under the Republican plan, they will have to spend $1,959 out of pocket to get that $3,000 worth of drugs. Under the bill that we would suggest, they would spend only $691.80. So Members can see that the Democratic plan, had we been allowed to offer it, is better. It does something for the seniors that the Republican bill does not do: it gives them the wherewithal to afford drugs. It gives them an entitlement that they are entitled to. The Republican bill is an entitlement for the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry. They are the only ones who get any money under the Republican bill. Under our alternative, the seniors are entitled. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2003. This bill is full of all the usual pork. On September 11, we were tragically shown how easy it is to defeat conventional defenses and deliver a weapon of mass destruction anywhere in the United States. This bill calls for spending billions on programs that don't directly respond to this basic security concern. In fact, most of this money will do nothing to help defend our country from terrorism or stop terrorist elements overseas. We have now wasted over $100 billion on several different versions of a national missile defense system. If we continue to spend at this level for the next ten years, we will spend more than $200 billion. Why would anyone spend billions developing ICBMs when it would be far more cost effective and technologically feasible to put it on a boat, a plane, or in a cargo container? We also are going to spend $7.6 billion on two advanced strike fighters designed to combat advanced tactical aircraft and penetrate enemy countries with integrated air defense systems. Yet, we are more threatened by those with the capability of building bombs in their basements than our most sophisticated adversaries, all of whom don't even possess these specialized air defenses. Will these multi-million dollar fighter planes help us? No. But, we are going to throw billions of dollars after these defense contractors anyway. Finally, when the Administration decided to cancel the $11 billion Crusader mobile howitzer, the Republican Leadership refused to consider my amendment supporting the Administration's decision. Later when they saw the wisdom of cutting this program to put toward current homeland security needs, they still left a few hundred million in an account to continue to fund an identical artillery system. Why? To give more pork to our poor defense contractors. It is time this Congress realizes: more money for unneeded and outdated programs will not improve our national security. We need to be wise in our defense spending. That is why I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, House Democrats keep our promise to introduce legislation creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act is an entitlement that would guarantee affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage to all senior citizens and individuals with disabilities who are on Medicare. It also includes provider payment increases and reforms that meet or exceed, in selected areas, those included in the Republican-written Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. But this debate is not about provider payments. It's about providing beneficiaries with needed prescription drug coverage. The benefit in this legislation is simple. It has no gaps, and no gimmicks. Beneficiaries will pay a $25 monthly premium, have a $100 per year deductible, and 20% co-insurance up to a $2000 out-of-pocket limit. After a beneficiary spends $2000, the government pays for all other needed prescription drugs. Under this legislation, a beneficiary will never pay more than $2000 in a year, and most beneficiaries will pay far less. Beneficiaries whose incomes are under 150 percent of poverty will pay no premiums and no cost-sharing. Those with incomes between 150-175 percent of the poverty level will receive premium subsidies on a sliding scale basis and pay no cost-sharing. These benefits will be guaranteed for every beneficiary, regardless of where they live. This legislation will reduce costs by using the market clout of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower prices. It will also reduce costs for all Americans by closing loopholes in current law that allow pharmaceutical companies to game the patent system by preventing competition from equally effective, but lower cost, generic drugs. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act guarantees the choices that matter. Under our plan, Medicare will pay toward the cost of every drug, not just those on which the private insurance company cut a special deal. And, under our plan, every pharmacy that is willing to play by the rules will be welcome to participate. And, importantly, unlike the Republican plan, our plan will never force the elderly or disabled into an HMO or similar private plan in order to get a prescription drug benefit. The prescription drug coverage in the Democratic bill will seem just like any other Medicare benefit, because it is a Medicare benefit. Don't be fooled by Republican rhetoric. The motto of the Republican bill ought to be ``caveat emptor''--let the buyer beware. Their bill is little more than an attempt to privatize Medicare, while doling out hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal tax dollar give-aways to their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. And, no matter which measure you use, beneficiaries will pay more and get less under the Republican plan. Our legislation will not be cheap. But we don't think twice about the cost of covering doctor visits and hospital stays under Medicare today. I would argue that prescription drug coverage is as essential to good health care in the 21st century as physician and hospital care was in the 20th century when Medicare was created. Make no mistake: The Republican bill is designed simply to provide political cover for Republican members, not prescription drug coverage for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. Our bill meets the needs of the 40 million Americans who depend on Medicare. That's why the leading beneficiary organizations support this legislation. I look forward to the debate. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of a real Medicare drug benefit. Vote ``yes'' on the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4931, the Republicans' so-called Retirement Security Savings Act. Like every other tax break the Republican leadership has brought to the floor lately, this bill is more about their political pandering than our priorities. But, I refuse to play games with the hard-earned pensions of working Americans while Republicans line the pockets of their wealthy contributors. We ought to bring a pension bill to the floor that encourages saving and increases employee participation in pension plans. Unfortunately, the Republican bill does little to help average Americans save for retirement. It simply benefits the wealthiest Americans. Forty-two percent of the tax breaks proposed by the Republicans would go to the richest five percent of taxpayers. Meanwhile, if you are an average American with a pension or retirement account, the Republican plan does nothing to help you build upon that savings. Republicans are obviously content with the fact that most Americans have only about $12,000 put away for retirement. I'm sure an Arthur Andersen accountant might be able to convince someone that $12,000 is sufficient. But, to think the Republicans would expect that most Americans would believe it just shows how out of touch they are. I support the Democratic plan for retirement security. It puts money where our mouth is when we say we want Americans to save. It rewards them for putting money away for their retirement by giving them a $1,000 tax credit if they contribute to an employer-sponsored pension plan or an IRA. Republicans supported giving lower and middle-income families this credit in the past. They included it in last year's tax bill. But, for some reason they won't support it today. Why not? Maybe Republicans don't think it's necessary because they've already passed their huge tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? Maybe they've just gotten too close with their corporate donors to appreciate the struggles many Americans face in building a secure retirement? Whatever the answer may be, it is clear Republicans haven't learned anything from the Enron fiasco. This bill's second, major flaw is that does nothing to enforce corporate accountability when it comes to pensions. It doesn't prevent huge scams like Enron from being carried out on the backs of employees--it makes it easier. We shouldn't allow those that work hard for their retirement to be ripped off while a handful of greedy executives walk away with millions. We should be on this floor today making sure that Enron never happens again. I support the Democratic plan because it will lock in real pension protection and ensure that workers are fairly compensated when companies fail. But, instead, we're stuck having to vote on a Republican bill that does nothing but reward corporate greed at the expense of millions of hard-working Americans. I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's families, support the sensible Democratic plan for retirement security, and vote down the Republican bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dezie Woods-Jones for her 40 extraordinary years of educational leadership and public service to the City of Oakland. She will retire on July 14, 2002 from her position as Vice-Chancellor for External Affairs for the Peralta Community College District, leaving behind a legacy of excellence in education and community activism. Dezie Woods-Jones has served the community as a committed activist, working diligently on behalf of the underprivileged, the underserved, the disenfranchised, youth, and for women's rights. Born in Ruston, Louisiana, and raised in Fresno and Oakland, California, Dezie Woods-Jones began her civic involvement as a high school student, serving as president of the Fresno Youth Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement, she also worked with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Black Conference Planning Committee (BCPC), and the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from California State University, Hayward. In 1968, Dezie Woods-Jones accepted her first position with Peralta Community College District, as Director of the Community Outreach Center in North Oakland. Before being promoted to Vice-Chancellor for External Affairs, she held a number of management positions in the District, including Director of Governmental Affairs, where she served as the District's lobbyist for almost eight years. She also served as an instructor, and she still considers herself first and foremost an educator and teacher. In 1991, Dezie Woods-Jones was elected to the Oakland City Council, and she served as the city's Vice Mayor from 1996-1997. She was also the first woman to run for mayor of the city of Oakland. During her tenure on the council, she served as chair of the Council's Rules Committee, and as a member of the Finance and Legislation Committee and the Public Safety/Health and Human Services Committee. A dedicated advocate for women's rights, Dezie Woods-Jones was a founding member of the pioneering organization Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA), and has served as the organization's statewide president for over 30 years. Dezie Woods-Jones was named one of the ``21 Leaders for the 21st Century'' by Women's Enews in 2002, and she received a nomination as one of the ``Bay Area's 10 Most Influential Leaders,'' in City Flight Magazine in 2001. She was also included in ``Women of Courage,'' a book published by Nestle, Inc. that featured stories of 35 women from across the country. She is a frequent guest on Bay Area radio and television shows, and has been invited as a guest speaker in South Korea, West Africa, South America, and Mexico. She has held membership in over 50 community, state, and national organizations, chaired over 20 commissions, committees and boards, received hundreds of awards and recognitions, and has been appointed to special task force projects by the governor of California and several Oakland mayors. I am honored to congratulate Dezie Woods-Jones on all of her remarkable accomplishments. Her tireless dedication to education and her community have touched the lives of countless Oakland residents.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. For twenty-five years the federal government has made hollow promises to fully fund the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). This legislation makes good on that promise; however, it does more than that. By linking funding to better outcomes, it also makes sure that the spirit of IDEA is truly realized for children with disabilities. IDEA opened the school doors to children with disabilities; yet, more needs to be done in order to make special education work for disabled students. National statistics suggest that there is still a sizable disparity in the outcomes of disabled students when compared to students without disabilities. When compared to students without disabilities, between 19 and 42 percent fewer disabled students are able to pass state proficiency examinations; The drop out rate for disabled students is double that of students without disabilities; Only 55 percent of disabled students receive a regular high school diploma (compared to 75 percent of individuals within the general school population); Disabled individuals are 50% less likely to attend college than are individuals who are not disabled; Disabled students often avoid the painful experience of school and their attendance suffers; and The Census Bureau reports that 50% of individuals with disabilities are employed, compared with 84% of non-disabled individuals. The under-funding of IDEA could help explain why students with disabilities fare so poorly on these critical outcomes. While Congress has doubled federal appropriations for IDEA over the last decade, federal funding for IDEA is less than half of what Congress originally promised. Unfortunately, recent increases in federal funding have translated into very modest improvement in the overall outcomes of disabled children. This would suggest that we not only need more federal funding for disabled students, but we need to use our resources more wisely. The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act will dramatically increase the financial support for children with disabilities. However, in order to receive increases, school districts must make sure disabled children are not left behind. In return for mandatory increases in funding for IDEA, school districts must help disabled students: Increase their attendance; Increase academic proficiency; Lower the incidence of drop out; Increase graduation rate; and Improve rates of post-secondary employment and education. The bill will also provide mandatory increases in funding for research and development as well as for programs that help disabled infants, preschoolers and their families. Linking mandatory funding to accountability will profoundly change the way IDEA works by doing just that--making it work. The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act is needed to move away from the status quo. Our children, regardless of their ability or disability, deserve more that a second-class education. We should accept nothing less than the best tools we have to help them succeed. Please join me in supporting the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. It is about time we give meaning to the phrase, Leave No Child Behind.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge my great appreciation for the work done in Congress by my colleague from Hawaii, Congresswoman Patsy Mink. Recently, I came across an article published in Outlook magazine in connection with the American Association of University Women, titled Title IX at 30: Making the Grade? written by Patrice Gaines. The article observes Title IX's 30th anniversary as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. As a co-author of this law, Congresswoman Mink desired equal opportunities for women in comparison to their male counterparts in all education programs receiving taxpayer dollars. While there has been significant progress for women in the past thirty years, there are still many obstacles to overcome. Some of the barriers were addressed in the article, provided below. Title IX at 30: Making the Grade? It was just 37 words, attached without fanfare to an education amendment. ``In the dark of night, we stuck in this language,'' recalls U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii) (pictured above), who authored the law with the late Rep. Edith Green (D-Oregon). ``I don't think my colleagues had any idea that language hitched to funding could make such a difference.'' The law was Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Its existence illustrates what can happen when women are in positions of power. Of course, Mink and Green needed the support of their male colleagues. At the time, women held just 12 congressional seats. But history was altered because these two women beat the odds to be elected to Congress and then took strong leadership roles. ``I knew of this terrible disparity in education long before [I came to] Congress,'' says Mink, who had applied to 13 law schools and found that only one would accept women. In 1949 the University of Chicago admitted two female law students in Mink's class of 200. In the last 30 years, Title IX has dramatically changed many aspects of society, most notably the sports arena. Young women who once could only shoot hoops in their driveways now earn sports scholarships to college and have opportunities-- though limited--to become professional athletes. And nearly 50 percent of law school students and lawyers are women. Yet progress under Title IX remains mixed. While we can watch WNBA games on TV, in some less visible aspects progress is slower or has even come to a screeching halt. Pink vs. Blue Education ``There is a lack of progress in career education-- vocational training at the high school and postsecondary levels,'' says Leslie Annexstein, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center and vice chair of the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, which is publishing a report (available late June 2002 at www.aauw.org) marking the status of Title IX on its 30th anniversary. ``We still see female students clustered in traditional occupational tracks that lead to jobs that make a lot less money.'' On the high school level, that means females still take cosmetology classes while males fill trade and construction programs. Statistics show that across the board, blue-collar jobs pay more than pink. While the gender gap has narrowed in math and science, engineering and physics remain male domains, and the gap yawns in technology. ``Technology is the key to the future, but women have been left behind,'' says AAUW Director of Public Policy and Government Relations Nancy Zirkin, who co-chairs the coalition with AAUW Government Relations Manager Jamie Pueschel. According to statistics in Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age (AAUW Educational Foundation, 2002), boys take computer advanced placement classes and pursue information technology degrees. Girls tend to use computers for data entry and e-mail. That leaves men with more than 80 percent of high-tech--and high-paying--jobs. Other post-Title IX hurdles remain: As you move up the career ladder in prestige or rank, you find fewer and fewer women. The coalition report highlights the second-class status of women working in educational institutions. While women account for almost three-fourths of school-teachers, for example, they make up only about 20 percent of high school principals and 12 percent of superintendents. In higher education, women are only 21 percent of full professors and 19 percent of college and university presidents. And persistently, on all educational levels, the learning environment remains uneven. Male students attract more attention--positive and negative--than do females. ``That means females receive less encouragement and stay in secondary roles throughout their education,'' says Annexstein. This can condition females to accept a back seat in school as well as in career and adult roles. That's not just bad for girls. Boys hear that they are trouble-makers and problem students and may find the heat of the added attention uncomfortable. Sexual harassment, too, continues to plague young women and men. Eight in 10 students in grades eight to 11 experience harassment during their student lives, according to Hostile Hallways: Bullying, Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School (AAUW Educational Foundation, 2001), and more than a quarter say they experience harassment often. Girls are more likely to experience harassment than boys--83 percent versus 79 percent--but boys today are more likely to be harassed than were their counterparts in 1993. Compared to this backslide, there is a standstill in progress in the treatment of pregnant and parenting students. Before Title IX, high school students were automatically expelled if they became pregnant, and parenting typically signified the end of their formal education. Title IX now prohibits discrimination based on parental status, making automatic expulsion illegal. Yet while these young women may be allowed to stay in school, without more programs and assistance to help them, the results remain the same: A young women is often forced to drop out. Traditional schools encourage pregnant students to leave or to attend one of the newer programs established specifically for young parents. But these newer schools generally lack academic quality. Push for Change Still, Mink remains hopeful. She's seen how far women have come, though progress may be slow. A member of AAUW's Puna, Hawaii, Branch, she began taking a lead role in advancing equity on the House Education and Labor Committee when she and other members summoned publishers to address the lack of female images in schoolbooks. With that congressional nudge, in a few years the texts changed. Next, Mink recalls, Edith Green wanted to add the category of ``sex'' to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace. ``The Justice Department kept saying it couldn't [legally] be done,'' says Mink. ``The only thing left was to attach it to the education bill.'' In the end, Congress did outlaw sex discrimination in Title VII, but Mink and Green still pushed the change in Title IX. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) immediately added his support. ``I was a Little League coach in Anchorage,'' he recalls. ``I had three boys and two girls. When it came time to pick a team, I had to tell the girls they couldn't play.'' His oldest daughter suggested the sue, but Stevens didn't have the time or money to invest in a lengthy court case. Yet he never forgot his daughters' disappointment and his feeling that the playing field was not fair. So when he got to Congress, he joined forces with Mink, Green, and others. He remains a staunch supporter of Title IX. So does Dot ``Doc'' Richardson, captain of the softball team that took home the gold from the 1996 and 2000 Olympics. Richardson says that title IX helped her become not just a world-class athlete but a surgeon, too. ``Through Title IX we got the chance to learn that people appreciate athletic talent no matter the gender,'' she says. ``That's the kind of respect every athlete wants: to just be treated as an athlete--not as a male or female athlete.'' But that's just the beginning. ``Title IX is all about education,'' says Richardson, a surgeon at Ray-Richardson Orthopedic Associates in Clermont, Florida. ``It amazes me that people believe that Title IX means if you have a college football team for men, you have to have a football team for women,'' says Richardson. What it says is that female students must have equal opportunities to participate in educational programs and activities. In a way, Richardson says, Title IX taught her to dream, creating opportunities she never imagined possible. The young Dot who longed to play Little League baseball with her brothers never dreamed that one day the best-selling Louisville Slugger bat would bear her name. keeping title ix alive Mink and Green's short amendment has created opportunities while making equity issues a part of the general consciousness of many men and women, especially those who have grown up since the amendment became law. Consider the children of ABC News reporter and commentator Cokie Roberts: ``My daughter went to Princeton and had a varsity letter in water polo. That would not have been possible without Title IX. But it would never occur to her that she would not have equal education and access to everything. And her brother is appalled at the notion that things would be any different for her than they are for him.'' Yet, warns Mink, people must be vigilant in guarding the law that passed so quietly. ``Most of the young people around today don't understand what it was like in the 1940s and '50s,'' says Mink. ``As the older women pass and the younger ones do not have the knowledge,there may be an attempt to water down Title IX.'' I ask my colleagues to rise today and recognize our colleague, Patsy Mink; a woman who has dedicated much of her time and efforts advocating the significance and achievements that women can and do contribute to this country.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4019, a bill to permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty. Last year, the President promised we could have it all. He argued that the projected $5.6 trillion surplus was enough for a large tax cut, an increase in education spending, and a decent Medicare prescription drug benefit. It's no surprise to those of us who voted against his tax plan that such grandiose promises have proven wrong. Now, one year later, instead of large projected surpluses, our budget is in deficit. Republicans now say that we don't have the funds to implement last year's No Child Left Behind education bill. Republicans refuse to propose a Medicare prescription drug benefit worthy of America's seniors. But, they are perfectly willing to continue spending trillions of dollars on new tax cuts for the wealthy. When is the Republican leadership going to stop playing games with our priorities? The bill before us today will not take effect until 2011. At that point, it will cost over $25 billion per year. Over the following decade, it will cost over a quarter of a trillion dollars. This is at the same time when the retirement of the baby boom generation will begin putting enormous strains on Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans have already shown they're content to lead us into fiscal crisis today. This bill continues to make clear that they want us in financial crisis in the next decade as well. This doesn't have to be the case. I support the responsible and fiscally sound approach to marriage penalty relief being offered by my fellow Democrats. Our bill makes the marriage tax penalty fix permanent. But, our bill simply adds a protection for Social Security. It says if we don't have the money in future budgets to enact responsible tax cuts, we have the option to put them on hold. The Republican's bill leaves the door open for future invasions of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for forced tax cuts. We ought to be debating a prescription drug benefit and saving Social Security for future generations. Instead, we are forced week after week to vote on yet another Republican tax bill that favors their wealthy contributors. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the fiscally-flawed Republican Marriage Penalty Relief Act and support the fiscally-sound Democratic alternative.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this ridiculous, misdirected constitutional amendment to require a two- thirds super majority vote for raising taxes. The House Republican majority won't address the issues the American people want us to address because they just don't care or they simply can't get their act together. They won't give seniors a prescription drug benefit, their appropriations bills aren't ready to go, and they've about run out of taxes to cut. So instead they bring bills like this one to the floor in order to kill time and look like they're working. I'm amused to see this constitutional amendment on the floor again this year. And my emphasis is on the word again. We have voted on this constitutional amendment seven items in the past seven years. Seven times, Mr. Speaker! And in each of the past seven years, the amendment has failed by large margins. Why has it failed? Because it's irresponsible and everybody knows it. Requiring a two-thirds majority for Congress to increase taxes just doesn't make sense. For starters, it would risk the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. It would also short-circuit our ability to produce balanced budgets and pay down the debt. Finally, it would undermine our efforts to enhance homeland security. The Republicans' haughty talk about fiscal discipline is truly laughable. These Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible are the same people who squandered our history-making surplus on a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut. That tax cut, coupled with needed funding for the fight against terrorism, has plunged our nation into debt. And now they want to tie our hands with an ill-conceived constitutional amendment? If the truth be known, the Republicans don't even need this amendment to make such a change. If they really want to require a two-thirds majority vote on raising taxes, they need only change the rules of the House. But that wouldn't be as flashy as a constitutional amendment. And it probably wouldn't fill up as much time, either. What this House really needs is leadership. We need leaders who will respond to the needs of the American people, not puppets who do the bidding of giddy, right-wing conservatives. Leadership is what we need, but we clearly won't get it with this Republican majority. So let's go on with the charade, debate this dumb amendment, and vote it down as usual. No reason to get too excited about it; I'm sure it'll be back again next year.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2143, a bill to make repeal of the estate tax permanent. House Republicans need to wake up to reality. Our budget is in deficit, our security is in shambles, and our people, specifically our seniors and the poor, are suffering. Facing these astronomical problems, what do the Republicans want to do? Give more money to the rich! It's truly astonishing. The Republicans are so beholden to the wealthy that they either don't see or are willing to ignore the real problems our country faces. I say to my Republican colleagues, wake up! The rich are doing just fine. They don't need any more government handouts. There are several more important priorities where we could invest this money. I'd like to concentrate on just one: America's seniors. Today's bill sends the message to our seniors that a Medicare prescription drug benefit isn't nearly as important as securing tax- free estates for the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers. There are 40 million Medicare beneficiaries--virtually all of whom need help with their prescription drug costs. In contrast, repeal of the estate tax will only help the wealthiest one percent of descendants, or around 23,000 estates per year. At a time when we have scarce Federal resources, are we going to help 40 million elderly and disabled individuals who depend on Medicare or are we going to help the richest families in our Nation who are affiliated with those 23,000 estates? My priority is to help the 40 million seniors. A May 2002 poll by NPR, Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Kennedy School of Government found that 64% of people would support rolling back the tax cut that Congress passed last year to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors. Only 25% opposed this idea. I'm certain most of these people would also oppose spending $56 billion more per year on a small handful of wealthy taxpayers. This bill is another Republican gift to the rich people who fill their campaign coffers. Meanwhile, the seniors, the poor, and the uninsured are left out in the cold. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2143. It's time to get our priorities straight.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, let us understand and cut through all this nonsense about small businesses and small farms. Many of us in this Congress pay a lot of income tax. I do. I have been very fortunate. My children will perhaps inherit from me when I pass on money in the amounts that they may have to pay in an estate tax. But the fact is, and I am joined in this observation by the Buffet and the Gates families, who hardly can be called liberals, and who have a lot, lot more money than most of us in Congress, and they find it abhorrent that we should try and protect children and give children millions of dollars. Now, no one is in any danger of losing a business, because the Code currently, first of all, allows people with small businesses that are privately held to pass those on at a deep discount, sometimes 30 and 40 percent off their value because they are illiquid. Secondly, it gives 15 years at very low interest rates, even less than 6 percent, for these beneficiaries to pay off any estate tax. So I have always said, and my children are getting a little sick of hearing me say it, that when I move on and they get a chance to inherit our family business, if they can get a business with about a 50 percent downpayment given to them free, and the other 50 percent that they only have to pay off over 15 years at less than 6 percent, if they cannot operate that business and make enough money to pay off their fair share of taxes, they are too dumb to get the business, and I did not do the right thing and their mother did not do the right thing in raising them. So it is a matter of fairness. This is an attempt by the Republicans to create a nobility, a group of people who have never earned anything in this country, as most of my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means have not. None of them ever had a business. They have either worked at the public trough all their lives or inherited a business. So when we hear about free enterprise and passing on businesses, they are really talking about pandering to the very rich, who they hope will contribute to keep them in office. Let us get behind this. It is not to protect the family farms, it is not to protect the small businesses, it is there to protect a stream of campaign contributions from the very rich who will benefit most from this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 2002, the Union City Police Department will celebrate the retirement of one of its finest officers, Lieutenant Mike Shelton. In his 31-year law enforcement career, Lt. Shelton has served the Union City Police Department in many capacities, working as a Motor Officer in Traffic, Firearms Instructor, Investigations Division Supervisor, Youth Services Bureau Director, Police Explorer Post Advisor, Personnel and Training Manager, Crime Prevention, Research and Analysis Section Supervisor, and Patrol Division Supervisor. In addition, Lt. Shelton was instrumental in developing the force's Operational and Procedural Directives, nearly every departmental form in use by the Police Department, and the Watch Commander's Guide. He writes the Department's weekly newsletter, the Crimes Times, and his treatise on the effects of alternative music on children of dysfunctional families was published worldwide. Recently, Lt. Shelton introduced and shared his knowledge of digital photography with the department. During his off-duty hours, Lt. Shelton served the Union City Police Officer's Association in four consecutive terms as its treasurer and served as its President in 1975. He was chosen as Officer of the Year in 1999 by his peers. Lt. Shelton served nearly his entire career with the Union City Police Department. He was an Air Policeman with the United States Air Force from December 1964 until becoming an officer with the Fremont Police Department in July 1968. He began his long and distinguished career with the Union City Police Department on January 18, 1971. He was promoted from Officer to Sergeant in December 1975, and from Sergeant to Lieutenant in July 2001. Michael Shelton graduated from Washington High School in Fremont, the U.S. Air Force Police Technical Course, Chabot College and California State University, Hayward. He has attended the University of Southern California's Delinquency Control Institute, the California Highway Patrol motor school, and the Police Planner's Institute. I am honored to join the colleagues of Lt. Michael Shelton in commending him for 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. For the last few years supplemental appropriations bills have been brought to the floor to cover shortcomings in the previous year's appropriation bills. Increasingly, these bills have strayed from their original purpose of merely appropriating funds for certain programs. Instead, they make changes in policy, create new regulations, or implement new and completely unrelated laws. This bill continues this unfortunate trend. It sends billions of dollars in foreign aid to other countries, cuts funding to low-income and elderly housing, and includes specific Medicare ``fixes'' for hospitals in the districts of three Republican House members. Most egregious of all, the bill raises the federal debt limit to let the government keep spending money above what we should. The Republicans have a problem and they don't know what do about it. Their irresponsible tax cut has eaten up so much of the government's resources that we are about to exceed the federal debt limit. Rather than admit that they caused this problem, the Republicans have slipped language into the bill to raise the debt limit without anyone knowing. In other words, they've taken a page from Ken Lay's book: cover up irresponsible spending with hidden accounting tricks. What a disgrace. Keeping up these tricks, the Republicans want to send $1.4 billion in aid to foreign countries four months ahead of time in order to dodge the budget bullet. There is simply no justification for this funding. Even worse, the bill further relaxes controls that prevent human rights violators from receiving military assistance. And the bill doesn't stop there. Listen to this: we're going to give Israel $200 million to continue destroying Palestinian infrastructure while at the same time giving the Palestinians $50 million to rebuild! The bill relaxes restrictions on aid to Colombia despite its ongoing human rights violations in its war against revolutionaries within its own boarders. It even appropriates $1.8 billion in military funding above the President's request. The Republicans naturally need a method to pay for all this new spending and they have proposed to do so in two ways: first, as I've already described, they want to raise the debt limit. Second, they want to cut valuable programs here at home. For example, the Republicans have cut $300 million for low-income and senior housing in order to pay for this bill. In doing so, they turn their backs on 13 million Americans who spend more than half of their income on substandard housing. This bill wastes more of our precious resources and then covers up for it with hidden, below-the-table gimmicks. I will vote against this awful bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.