Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Freddye Davis on her appointment as chairperson of the racial/hate injustice discrimination division of the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Freddye Davis also serves as president of the Hayward chapter of the NAACP. She counts the creation of a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street in Hayward as one of her greatest accomplishments in this position. Her reputation as a tenacious leader, and her sensitivity in responding to police brutality and hate crimes in Hayward make her the ideal person for her new position. As chairperson, Freddye Davis will handle complaints of racial discrimination from all over California. One of her primary goals is to train NAACP members to identify and respond to racism. She plans to revitalize the NAACP state conference, to return it to the large, vibrant annual gathering it once was, and to hold forums for law enforcement officials and young African-Americans. Also, she will address the racially biased downsizing that some companies have engaged in by firing people of color and then offering their jobs to non- colored employees. Freddye Davis's devotion to fighting for equal rights started when she was a young girl in Birmingham, Alabama. She took part in civil rights marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gaining experience in organizing nonviolent demonstrations that has proven valuable during her career. Several years ago, when the Ku Klux Klan was planning to meet at the Hayward Main Library, Freddye helped stop the meeting, and she dispersed an angry group of African Americans preparing to protest. I join the colleagues of Freddye Davis in congratulating her on her new position. Her persistence and determination have enabled countless Hayward residents to enjoy a better quality of life. Now, the entire state of California will benefit from Freddye Davis's dedication to fighting for civil rights.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4737, the so-called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002. This Republican bill is bad public policy and hurts people who really need help. The Republicans, unfortunately, care more about looking tough on welfare than they do about lifting poor people out of poverty. Poor people don't vote, they think, so it's easy to write them off. That's a disgrace. This bill abrogates our responsibility to make laws that protect and lift up all of our citizens. The bill's added work requirements reduce state flexibility to tailor a work plan for each individual welfare recipient. The Republican plan limits the activities that states can count as work activities for the first 24 hours out of 40 hours of work. This eliminates the capability for poor people to spend most of their first years on welfare building their jobs skills through education. The more skills a worker has, the better job he or she will get. Moreover, this requirement traps poor people in welfare or traps them at the poverty level. In Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Texas, for example, anyone who works 24 hours a week at minimum wage would not be eligible for welfare at all. In other words, they would earn too much to get state help, but not enough to get out of poverty. It's a catch-22! The next major flaw in this bill is its paltry, inadequate commitment to child care. Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle for welfare parents who want to work is the lack of quality, affordable childcare for their children. This bill totally ignores the current need for childcare funds. Right now, less than one in five children who are eligible for childcare assistance actually get it. Not only does this bill do nothing for the current childcare pitfall, it also increases the amount of hours that welfare recipients must work without providing an equivalent increase in childcare funding. Finally, the Republican bill spends $300 million dollars to promote marriage between welfare recipients. This misguided policy intrudes on private decisions between adults and takes needed funds away from programs that actually help raise poor people out of poverty. In addition, government interference in promoting or coercing people to marry could have unintended, tragic consequences. According to a joint report by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, 25 percent of women said they have been raped or physically assaulted by their current or former spouse. More alarming still, research shows that 60 percent of women on welfare have suffered from domestic violence. As these statistics confirm, if government were to encourage or coerce someone on welfare to get married, it would not guarantee a healthier or safer family, and it could endanger the lives of mothers and children. Our Democratic alternative, on the other hand, addresses the real problems facing our welfare system today. Our bill makes poverty reduction an explicit goal of TANF. Republicans just want to kick people off of welfare; Democrats want to lift people out of poverty. Our bill has work requirements that are broad and flexible to allow welfare recipients to spend time job searching, to get vocational and post-secondary education, and to enroll in substance abuse programs, if necessary. The Democratic bill increases our commitment to affordable, quality childcare. If we want welfare parents to work, then they shouldn't have to abandon their kids to do so. Our bill rewards those states who reduce child poverty, giving them an incentive to really act on this issue. The Republican welfare bill has the wrong priorities, spends money where it shouldn't and does nothing to equip welfare beneficiaries with the tools they need to get out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4737 and to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act. My bill would expand Medicare eligibility for uninsured patients with chronic kidney disease before their condition advances to End-Stage status. The bill would provide access to healthcare and most importantly disease management and End Stage Renal Disease-prevention services (ESRD). It would improve the quality of life for those suffering from kidney disease and could provide real savings for the Medicare program by helping chronic kidney disease patients avoid or delay the costly dialysis treatments and kidney transplants associated with the end stage status of the disease. ESRD patients are the only group eligible for Medicare enrollment due to their medical diagnosis. ESRD is characterized by a permanent loss of kidney function, which results in the need for weekly dialysis treatments to cleanse impurities from the blood. ESRD patients are subject to a 30-month waiting period following diagnosis before Medicare benefits begin, which leads to further deterioration of health prior to being able to access care under Medicare. The decline in health that occurs during this waiting period reinforces the need for disease management interventions to preserve maximum health and delay advancement of the illness. It is known that early diagnosis and treatment of kidney disease can prevent certain future complications including progression to end stage status and development of heart disease, a common outcome of kidney disease. By allowing this vulnerable population to access care during the 2 years prior to qualifying for Medicare due to an End Stage Renal Disease diagnosis, this bill wisely and appropriately addresses a critical unmet health need. Under the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act, uninsured, pre-ESRD chronic kidney disease patients would be eligible for full Medicare coverage and ESRD prevention services. To be eligible, a physician would need to certify a chronic kidney disease patient as likely to need dialysis or a transplant in the next two years under accepted clinical standards. Individuals eligible under the bill would pay Medicare Part B premiums. Disease management and ESRD-prevention services provided by this legislation include counseling on treatment options, the viability of a kidney transplant, disease management, and nutrition. These new services would also be available to current Medicare enrollees who become diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. Today, more than 300,000 people receive dialysis. By 2010, it is expected that 650,000 individuals will be receiving weekly dialysis treatment. In 2001, Medicare spent $14.4 billion to care for ESRD patients, which averages more than $20,000 per member, which far exceeds the average 2001 Medicare expenditure for non-ESRD beneficiaries, $6000. The National Kidney Foundation, who has endorsed this bill, estimates that 20 million Americans have kidney disease. Many of these Americans do not know they suffer from this condition and therefore do not take advantage of beneficial prevention measures. In February 2002, the National Kidney Foundation called for earlier screening for kidney disease in reaction to the near doubling of the illness in the U.S. in the last decade. Their screening campaign focuses on those at high risk for developing chronic kidney disease including people with diabetes, high blood pressure, a family history of the disease, older Americans, African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Hispanics. Expanded prevention services for chronic kidney disease patients are long overdue. The preventive measures in this bill will minimize the damaging impact of this chronic illness and allow Medicare to slow the growth of the ESRD population. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act so we can make these vital improvements to the Medicare program for those who suffer from chronic kidney disease.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Milpitas Rotary Club on its 50th anniversary. For 50 years now, members of the Milpitas Rotary Club have committed themselves to serving the community, the country, and the world. The Rotary Club is a major force in the community and significantly improves the lives of children and families in Milpitas by sponsoring Interact Clubs at Milpitas and Calaveras Hills High Schools, granting both academic and technical scholarships, holding community events, and sending high school students to a week-long summer youth leadership training camp. The Milpitas Rotary Club's tradition of service began with its chartering on June 24, 1952, at a dinner in St. John's Church Hall. Charter officers included President Joseph Gagliardo, Vice President Irving Crabb, Secretary William Barleson, Treasurer Thomas Cardoza, Sergeant-at-Arms Ray Madruga, and Charter Board Members Sal Cracolice, Ben Rodgers, and Clarence Smith. For years, the club held its meetings on Mondays at noon at the Cozy Kitchen on Main Street in Milpitas. In the 1980's, the Big Yellow House and Calamity Jane's were the meeting sites, until the Holiday Inn Hotel, now the Crowne Plaza Hotel, became the club's home. An active member of Rotary District 5170, which consists of 55 clubs in Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, the Milpitas Rotary Club's former president, Denny Weisgerber, served as District governor in 1999-2000. I am proud to recognize the Milpitas Rotary Club on its 50th anniversary. I am confident this club will continue to improve our community, as well as the country and the world, for years to come.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Patricia Geister on the day of her retirement as Principal of the Moreau Catholic High School in Hayward, California. For 16 years, Patricia Geister has served the Moreau Catholic High School as principal. Her dedication to excellence in education is evident in the visionary improvements that have resulted from her years as school principal. By improving student programs, updating facilities, making institutional changes, and enhancing the faculty, Patricia Geister assured every student at Moreau a top-quality education. During her tenure, the Ivaldi Student Center was completed; the availability of technology and other educational resources to students, faculty and staff was increased; and a safe campus environment was maintained. The number of Advanced Placement courses offered at the school increased from 4 to 14, the college preparatory curriculum was revamped and class size was reduced. A collegiate-style, alternate day schedule was introduced, providing students with an early introduction to collegiate life, and a competitive edge when applying to colleges. Patricia Geister introduced a student support system to the administration, which tasks assistant principals and counselors with making sure that every student need is fulfilled and nurtured. In 1987, she implemented the school's mission statement, and over the years she has furthered the relationship between Moreau Catholic and the Brothers of Holy Cross, and strengthened the school's relationship with its Catholic elementary schools. During her tenure, the school received maximum accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in 1988, 1994, and 2000. In 2000, Patricia Geister implemented the school's Expected Schoolwide Learning Results. I am honored to join the colleagues of Patricia Geister in commending her for her many years of dedicated service to the Moreau Catholic High School. Her commitment to excellence in education is truly an inspiration to all.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Defense authorization bill. With the President's war on terrorism continuing and with budget deficits rising, why are we spending money on so many unnecessary programs? Just yesterday the administration admitted that some of these programs are no longer necessary, yet the Republican leadership would rather waste billions of dollars on defense projects that keep defense contractors swimming in money. Earlier this week, I submitted an amendment to this bill that would have cut the $475 million to further research and develop the Crusader mobile howitzer project. Unfortunately, the Republicans refused to allow this amendment to be considered on the House floor. These Republicans are more interested in looking like they are strong on defense than they are in funding projects that can actually be used to defend our country. Even the Department of Defense has said it doesn't want the Crusader. If you don't believe me, look at the front page of today's Washington Post: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says, ``We are going to cancel the Crusader.'' Rather than falling in line behind President Bush, as they have on virtually every other initiative proposed by this administration, the Republican leadership wouldn't even allow a debate about this program. Why do I agree with the administration on a defense project? Let's look at some details. To date, we have spent $3.5 billion on an artillery system that doesn't have a prototype, fails to meet the operability requirements of the army, and would cost another $11 billion if we decided to purchase the system. Fully loaded, the Crusader weighs over 80 tons, so heavy that only the largest cargo plane we have could carry it, and just one at a time! Finally, howitzers like the Crusader are outdated weapons of warfare that are really only effective against large massed armies, such as those that were maintained by the former Soviet Union. There are few armies left in the world who use such WWII era tactics, and if in the future we happen to need these weapons again, the GAO has found that we can either upgrade the existing Paladin howitzer or purchase a German made system that fits the operational requirements of the Crusader. But the Crusader is not the only program that shouldn't be funded in this bill. This bill also authorizes continued funding of the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and an upgraded version of the F/A 18. With the upgrades of our existing F-15s and F-16s, our Air Force has air- superiority over any existing air force. While some argue that we need upgraded fighter aircraft to counteract improvements in surface to air defense systems, do we really need three different planes? The cost savings of just going with one of these systems instead of three would be astronomical. Not only would we stop throwing billions more dollars at defense contractors, we would save billions more by not having to purchase parts for three different planes and to hire three different sets of mechanics to service them. Finally, cutting these extraneous programs will further integrate our armed forces, a goal specifically mentioned by Secretary Rumsfeld in his speech at the Pentagon yesterday. This bill spends too much money on programs that will do nothing to protect our citizens. Instead, it lines the pockets of defense contractors and sends our nation's financial health into further disarray. In the interest of national defense and fiscal security, I am voting against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the grand opening of the Alvirda Hyman Leaming Center, an innovative new alternative learning facility donated by the Fremont Bank to the Fremont Unified School District in honor of Alvirda Hyman's dedication to continuing education. Alvirda Hyman is a living testimony to the power of lifelong learning and a role model for her commitment to community service. Throughout her adult life, Mrs. Hyman has been a strong supporter of education for students from preschool through adulthood. It was her support of her husband, Morris, in continuing his education that sewed the seeds of a career change that led to the founding of Fremont Bank in the early 1960s. Now one of the most successful family-owned businesses in the Bay Area, the Fremont Bank's 21 branches are a tribute to continuing education's ability to transform individual lives and improve communities. Likewise, the Alvirda Hyman Learning Center, which represents one of the most generous corporate contributions in the history of the Fremont Unified School District, is the ideal tribute to Mrs. Hyman's dedication to education. When Fremont Bank consolidated its support facilities, a 12,000 square-foot modular building became vacated and available for donation. The bank donated the building to the school district for use as instructional space. The new facility allows the Fremont Unified School District to provide tremendously improved space for several alternative education programs. It provides the Circle of Independent Learning Charter School a permanent home; it provides the Adult School Parent Education Program space designed specifically for its unique needs; and it gives the State Pre-School Program a permanent classroom within the district. As part of a full community effort, the building was moved in 20 sections to the Mowry Adult School site. Re-construction began in August 2001, and has resulted in a beautiful new facility designed especially to serve the individual needs of the alternative learning programs housed there. The commercial structure was re-designed into an attractive and functional learning environment, complete with a playground and activity areas. The 20 separate modular units were recombined into a structurally coherent and aesthetically stunning building. I am honored to congratulate Alvirda Hyman for her remarkable belief in the power and importance of lifelong learning. Her dedication to improving education has assured every citizen of Fremont the opportunity for a bright future, filled with ongoing education.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David M. Lawrence, M.D. on his retirement after 10 years of outstanding achievements as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Given Kaiser Permanente's vast influence on American medicine, Dr. Lawrence's successful stewardship of his organization constitutes a contribution not only to Kaiser Permanente's 8.4 million members nationwide, but to all Americans. He is to be commended for the positive impact that Kaiser Permanente has had on the quality and affordability of health care in the United States. Dr. Lawrence was named CEO in 1991 and Chairman of the Board in 1992. Prior to assuming his current role, Dr. Lawrence served KFHP/KFH as vice chairman and chief operating officer (1990-91); and senior vice president and regional manager in Colorado (1985-88). He also was vice president and area medical director for Northwest Permanente in Portland (1981-85). Dr. Lawrence also served as health officer and director of Human Services in Multnomah County, Oregon; on the faculty of Department of Health Services and Director of MEDEX in the school of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington; as advisor to the Ministry of Health of Chile; and as Peace Corps Physician in the Dominican Republic and Washington D.C. Dr. Lawrence is a graduate of Amherst College (BA), the University of Kentucky (MD), and the University of Washington (MPH). He is Board Certified in General Preventive Medicine (Johns Hopkins and University of Washington). He is a member of Alpha Omega Alpha (Medical Honorary Society) and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences). He currently serves on the Boards of Agilent Technologies, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Raffles Medical Group of Singapore, The Rockefeller Foundation, RAND Health Advisory Board, the Bay Area Council, and the Hospital Research and Educational Trust (AHA). He previously served as chair of the International Federation of Health Funds and the University of California's President's Board on Research and Economic Development. Dr. Lawrence is nationally known for his advocacy for improvements in the American health care delivery system. He served as a member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Quality of Health Care in America that produced the landmark report on patient safety, ``To Err is Human,'' and the blueprint for improving America's health care system, ``The Quality Chasm.'' Dr. Lawrence has been active in San Francisco Bay Area community affairs, serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the United Way of the Bay Area and chair of the annual campaign for the United Way in Alameda County and the San Francisco Bay Area. Dr. Lawrence has been recognized as the Outstanding Alumnus of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington (1980); and the Outstanding Alumnus of the College of Medicine, University of Kentucky (1995); and has received honorary degrees from Amherst College (Doctor of Science, 1994), and Colgate University (Doctor of Letters, 1995). Dr. Lawrence's achievements have improved both Kaiser Permanente and American health care. In his 10-year tenure as Chairman and CEO, he: 1. Made the delivery of quality heath care the single most important value of Kaiser Permanente and led Kaiser Permanente to be a quality leader in U.S. medicine. 2. Focused both the nation's and the organization's attention on the issue of patient safety and the need for reforms in the nation's health care delivery system. 3. Championed the expanded use of information technology for clinical care in Kaiser Permanente and the nation as a whole. 4. Partnered with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to conceive and initiate the Labor and Management Partnership, the only such partnership in the health care industry. 5. Kept Kaiser Permanente's diversity efforts at the forefront of the organization's agenda and made it one of the most inclusive workplaces in the nation. 6. Redesigned Kaiser Permanente's Community Benefit Program to enhance its value to the communities it serves. 7. Led Kaiser Permanente through the turnaround years of financial difficulties and returned it to financial stability. 8. Guided the development of the Kaiser Permanente's National Partnership Agreement, out of which grew the Kaiser Permanente Partnership Group, the joint leadership body that sets direction for the organization. 9. Created and developed a strong senior leadership team from both inside and outside the organization. 10. Created a string organization that functions with a national focus while maintaining responsiveness to the needs of the individual communities it serves. We are all fortunate to have had Dr. Lawrence at the helm of Kaiser Permanente and the forefront of American health care. I have valued his insights and perspective during his years at Kaiser Permanente. I have every confidence that he will continue to contribute to the health of all Americans and citizens throughout the world in his post-retirement activities.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 2002, the Fremont Police Department will celebrate the retirement of one of its finest officers, Captain Ronald E. Hunt. In his 32-year law enforcement career, Captain Hunt has gathered law enforcement expertise in a wide variety of subjects, published a report, and created and managed a renowned program to keep sex offenders away from children. Captain Hunt served his entire career with the Fremont Police Department. He joined the force in 1969 as a Police Officer in the Patrol Division, and through hard work and dedication, was promoted to his current position as Police Captain in 1986. Captain Hunt held a remarkable and varied number of positions within the Fremont Police Department. After serving six years as a Police Officer, he was assigned as the temporary report review Police Sergeant in the Operations Division on August 3, 1975. On January 12, 1976, he was appointed Police Sergeant in the Operations Division. He was assigned to the Investigative Section on January 8, 1978, and then to the Patrol Section on January 6, 1980, being selected as the PACT Section 2 Advisor on January 31, 1980. He was chosen to join the C-CAP Tactical Action Team on May 17, 1983, and was appointed Supervisor of the Communications Unit in the Services Division on August 5, 1984. He was then appointed Police Lieutenant in the Operations Division on December 31, 1984, and Day Shift Watch Commander of the Operations Division on January 5, 1986, before being promoted to his current position as Police Captain on July 16, 1986. On January 15, 1989, Ron Hunt was assigned as Commander of the Information Section of the Services Division, and was then assigned as Commander of the Patrol Section in the Operations Division on January 13, 1991. He was assigned to the Investigative Services Division on January 10, 1993, to Support Services on January 24, 1995, and to command the Traffic Services portion of Investigative/Traffic Services on July 1, 1996. He was transferred from Patrol to Investigative Services on January 13, 1997, and to the Support Division on July 2, 2000. Captain Hunt holds P.O.S.T. Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory, and Management Certificates, and also earned a Master of Science Degree in Management on June 10, 1995, from the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He graduated from Command College Class 19 on January 13, 1995, and his paper, ``The Role of the First-Line Patrol Supervisor in a Medium- Sized Police Department by the Year 2004'' was accepted for publication. He completed the Leadership Fremont program in June, 1998. The recipient of 73 commendations, he led the completion of the new police facility, which opened in 1995. On several occasions, Captain Hunt has served as Acting Police Chief, and was a valuable member of many Fremont police ``Baker to Vegas'' running teams as well as the Special Olympics Torch Run. Under Captain Hunt's leadership, the Fremont Police Department's Megan's Law database program became an outstanding success. Captain Hunt was responsible for creating the Internet database, which allows parents to monitor where convicted sexual offenders live. This program has one of the highest rates of inquiry in the state, and has been copied by many other police departments. I am honored to join the colleagues of Captain Ronald E. Hunt 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 Fremont Police Department.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sharon Jones on the day of her retirement as superintendent of the Fremont Unified School District in Fremont, California. For 37 years, Sharon Jones has served the Fremont Unified School District and the community of Fremont as a teacher, vice principal, principal, Director of Elementary Education, and Superintendent. Sharon Jones attended the Fremont Unified School District from elementary school through high school. Her success in giving back to the community is evident in the visionary educational programs she has directed and the high level of student achievement that has resulted from her years at the helm of the school district. A leader who makes quality education her first priority and achieves excellence through teamwork, Sharon Jones is recognized among her peers as a mentor. She is a strong advocate of providing respectful treatment of all students and staff in a harassment-free environment. In her long and distinguished career, Sharon Jones has ensured balanced educational program equity and led successful bond campaigns. She served as Chief Labor Negotiator for the Fremont Unified School District, and was a weekly reading mentor to students at an elementary school in the district. A recognized leader in the educational field, Sharon Jones is the author of outstanding textbooks in English and social studies. She received the PTA's highest award, the Golden Oak Award, in February 2002. She received the Ann Lord memorial award for the 1995-1996 school year, in honor of her leadership, courage, encouragement, support, and care. She is also the recipient of the 1988 California Education Award, the Rotary Foundation's Paul Harris Fellow Award, and the Certificate of Commendation from the California Association of Teachers of English Executive Board. I am honored to join the colleagues of Sharon Jones in commending her for her many years of dedicated and exemplary service to the Fremont Unified School District. Her commitment to honesty, integrity and trust in education is truly an inspiration to all.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 404, Expressing Solidarity with Israel. While some measures of this resolution may be accurate, it only provides one side of the story. This resolution condemns the use of terrorism by Palestinians. I too, condemn these acts. This resolution also condemns Chairman Arafat for failing to take action to prevent terrorists from operating out of territory under his control. I also condemn this failure. However, this resolution fails to condemn the excessive use of force by the Israeli government, it fails to call on Israel to allow United Nations investigators to go to the Refugee camp in Jenin to investigate accusations of human rights violations, and it fails to call on both sides to go back to peace talks to resolve their differences. I am disappointed that the House Leadership brought this resolution to the floor instead of House Resolution 494, introduced by my friend Congressman DeFazio, of which I am an original cosponsor. H. Res. 494 is a balanced resolution that condemns the violent acts of both parties in this conflict, calls on both sides to protect human rights observers and aid workers, and calls on both sides to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution not because of what it says but for what it does not say.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution ``To Protect Private Decisions About Marriage.'' The decision to marry is one of the most personal and important decisions that many of us will make in our lifetime. When you ask someone to spend the rest of his or her life with you, it should be done out of love, admiration, devotion and respect. Choosing to get married is a truly monumental decision and is usually one of the most memorable moments of our lives. Because the decision to marry is such a personal one, interference from outside parties is rarely warranted or appreciated. Many Americans turn to their friends, family or religious leaders when making a decision about marriage. Others turn only to their future partner. No one, however, turns to the government. And for good reason. Government interference in decisions about marriage is simply not warranted. Unfortunately, President Bush does not agree. The Bush Administration has proposed to spend $30 million dollars to promote marriage in this year's welfare reauthorization bill. This misguided policy intrudes on private decision between adults and takes needed funs away from programs that actually help raise poor people out of poverty. This year, Congress must consider legislation to reauthorize the welfare program. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, passed in 1995, helped many citizens find work, but not necessarily work that pays a living wage. As we consider reauthorizing TANF, we have an opportunity to direct our welfare program toward the important goal of lifting the poor out of poverty. The Bush administration, however, would rather push poor people into marriage. Stable, healthy marriages are very important for raising our children. The very institution of marriage is a cornerstone of our society and is a critical element in creating stable families. Marriage is not for everyone, though. Some people simply cannot make marriages work, for personal, religious or other reasons. In more tragic cases, marriage is literally not safe because of an abusive spouse. Government involvement in marriage, therefore, is just not appropriate. The American people agree. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, 79 percent of Americans believe the government should not develop programs to encourage people to marry or remain married. Furthermore, 66 percent of Americans who identify themselves as ``strongly religious'' believe the government should not interfere with decisions about marriage, according to the same poll. The American people clearly do not agree with the President's proposal. In addition, government interference in promoting or coercing people to marry could have unintended, tragic consequences. According to a joint report by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, 25 percent of women said they have been raped or physically assaulted by their current or former spouse. More alarming still, research shows that 60 percent of women on welfare have suffered from domestic violence. As these statistics confirm, if government were to encourage or coerce someone on welfare to get married, it would not guarantee a healthier or safer family, and it could endanger the lives of mothers and children. Not only is government involvement in promoting marriage a potentially dangerous endeavor and an unnecessary intrusion of privacy, it also takes money away from programs that really do create more stable and healthy families. The problems facing poor people on welfare won't be solved by getting married. What families on welfare need is greater access to childcare, healthcare and job training. Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle for welfare parents looking for a job is the lack of quality, affordable childcare for their children. Providing better, stable childcare has proven working adults in employment. This applies to healthcare and job training as well. By providing better healthcare and more access to job training, we can equip poor families with the tools they need to provide for their families and have more stable lives. Why should we waste $300 million coercing people to get married when that money could be better spent helping people out of poverty? The Bush Administration's marriage promotion proposal is misguided, potentially harmful, and not supported by the American people. The resolution that I am introducing today says it is the sense of Congress that government resources not be used to influence, promote, or coerce individuals' private decisions about marriage. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this important resolution and I call on the Bush Administration to reconsider this ill-advised proposal.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditor Responsibility Act, because the bill does nothing to prevent another Enron debacle from occurring in the future. Enron's collapse has highlighted major gaps in our securities laws. These gaps jeopardize the retirement savings of millions of hard working Americans who have their retirement funds invested in securities. After the Enron collapse, the American people overwhelmingly called for strong measures to prevent such a debacle from happening again. They called on Congress to act, but this bill falls far short. This so-called ``Corporate and Auditor Responsibility Act'' is nothing more than a political document for Republicans to appear like they are protecting investors and workers when, in fact, they are protecting corporations and CEOs. H.R. 3763 would actually increase the likelihood of another Enron situation because it limits the SEC's authority to prohibit Enron's corporate officers and directors from serving in such positions in the future if they are found guilty of misconduct. What happened to the GOP mantra of holding executives accountable for corporate misconduct? H.R. 3763 fails miserably to hold CEOs even remotely accountable for their actions. Even President Bush thinks it makes sense to have a company's CEO certify the accuracy of their financial statements. This bill fails to take even that small step. The Enron scandal happened less than 6 months ago, yet my Republican colleagues have quickly forgotten some of its major components. While thousands of Enron employees were being told to invest their retirement savings in Enron securities, Enron's CEO sold millions of dollars worth of company stock. Corporate officers knew that hollow deals were taking place to prop up the stock price, and the employees had to pay the price. Shouldn't company CEOs be responsible for signing on the dotted line and verifying the company's books? Of course they should! Which makes it all the more unfathomable that the GOP would submit a bill without a provision to hold CEOs responsible for the veracity of their company's bottom line. Our Republican friends are basically saying to Ken Lay: feel free to get another CEO gig, create some new tax shelters for the company, prop up the stock price and then walk away with millions in personal profit. Today's bill does nothing to prevent that. In contrast, the Democratic substitute addresses the more egregious corporate misconduct issues. First and foremost, the Democratic substitute requires the CEO and chief financial officer (CFO) of publicly-traded companies to certify the accuracy and veracity of the company's financial statements. This is a reasonable first step to ensure that executives be held accountable for misleading investors and employees. Next, the Democratic substitute allows the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to recover all executive compensation received (including salaries, commissions, fees, bonuses, and stock options) for any period during which the executive falsified a company's financial statements. The Republican bill only allows the SEC to recover stock transaction proceeds for the six months prior to a corporate restatement of earnings. Under the Republican bill, an executive making a $3 million salary, who falsifies company financial records, will be able to keep it. He can also keep hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option proceeds accumulated under falsified accounting from previous years. Finally, the Democratic substitute bill will empower the SEC to bar directors and officers found guilty of corporate misconduct from holding similar positions in the future. CEOs who mislead and defraud their investors and employees must not be allowed to return to similar positions. Without a strong provision such as this, incentives will continue to abound for CEOs to choose personal profit over corporate integrity. This Republican bill is another sham on the American public who expect Congress to pass effective legislation to restore corporate accountability. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and no on the Republican bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 586, an irresponsible bill to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010. At a time when Social Security is threatened, our seniors can't buy drugs, our children attend crumbling schools, and our environment is under attack, the Republicans can think of nothing better to do than extend their enormous tax cuts into perpetuity. This is a disgrace. And it's a sad day for America. The bush tax cut that passed last year has already thrown our economic stability into disarray. Prior to enactment of the tax cut, our Nation enjoyed a record $5.6 trillion surplus. With that money, we could have saved Social Security, provided a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, strengthened our children's education, and protected the environment. Now, $4 trillion of that surplus is gone, and the rest is fading fast. Who in their right mind would vote for this bill? The people in my district certainly wouldn't, and neither would most American families. If a family knows that one spouse is going to be laid off and that they will soon lose a substantial portion of their income, they don't go buy a Ferrari on credit! As we watch our Nation's resources disappear because of the current tax cut, why do the Republicans want to throw the rest away? My greatest concern today is for the people who will needlessly suffer because of the carelessness and recklessness of this sorry bill. Our Nation made a promise to its citizens that we would not abandon them as they grew older. Making these tax cuts permanent would eliminate the money needed in 2010 and beyond to ensure that we keep this promise to our seniors--through the Social Security and Medicare programs--and fulfill our bipartisan promise to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The simple, unmistakable fact is that Republicans don't care about Social Security or Medicare. They never have and they never will. They care about their corporate contributors. And they care about the wealthy. The rest of America, however, gets nothing but the cold shoulder. If the fact that this bill endangers our seniors wasn't bad enough, look at what it does to our children. The President and his Republican allies supported passage of the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' education bill last year. But this year, they have failed to provide funding to actually make those education reforms possible. As usual, the Republicans want to appear like they care about the important issues of working families, but they have no interest in actually funding them. This budget cuts last year's education bill by $90 million and calls for termination of forty educational programs. This forces my constituents to ask a very logical question: why can Republicans find enough money for tax cuts, but can't find enough money for our kids? Again, the budget surplus has shrunk by $4 trillion in one year. Extending the tax cuts will cost $400 billion over just two years, in 2011 and 2012. Analysts estimate that the 10 years after that, the tax cuts will cost more than $4 trillion! The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the size of the tax cut is more than twice as large as the Social Security financing gap. To make matters worse, these reckless tax cuts will go into effect when the baby boom generation starts to retire, Medicare faces a funding shortfall, and prescription drug prices undoubtedly will be higher than ever. I urge my colleagues to stop and think about what an additional tax cut today will mean for our families--especially our seniors and children. Republicans cut taxes for sport, but this is no game. This bill affects the lives of every American, the very people who have elected us to look out for them and to represent their interests here. Today's bill does nothing to help America. I urge a No vote.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it a federal crime for a person, other than a parent, to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion unless the minor had already fulfilled the requirements of her home state's parental involvement law. This bill would deny teenagers facing unintended pregnancies the assistance of trusted adults, endanger their health, and violate their constitutional rights. This flawed legislation is dangerous to young women and should in fact be called the ``Teen Endangerment Act.'' Minor women who seek abortions come from a wide variety of religious, cultural, socioeconomic, geographic, and family backgrounds, and seek abortions for an equally wide variety of reasons. In 86 percent of counties nationwide for example, the closest abortion provider is across state lines. Data shows that the majority, 61 percent, of minors willingly involve their parents in their decision to have an abortion. Many that do not wish to involve their parents make that decision because of a history of physical abuse, incest, or the lack of support from their parents. Parental involvement laws cannot and do not open lines for healthy, open family communication where none exist, and they can put a minor in danger of physical violence. When a young woman does not have the ability to involve a parent, public policies and medical professionals should encourage her to involve a trusted adult, such as a grandparent. Instead of giving young women this alternative, this bill does the exact opposite. If passed into law, it would create havoc by potentially allowing grandma to be prosecuted and jailed for traveling across state lines to obtain needed reproductive health services for her granddaughter. While proponents of this bill will argue the alternative to parental consent is a judicial bypass, this simply is not an option for many teenagers. Many judges never grant bypass petitions, and many teenagers have well-grounded fears of being recognized in a local courthouse and/ or of revealing their personal intimate details in a potentially intimidating legal process. Moreover, many states with parental involvement laws do not provide a procedure for ruling on a minor's right to an out-of-state abortion. Besides, in many states judicial bypasses are available only in theory and not in practice. Rather than tell their parents, some teenagers resort to unsafe, illegal, ``back alley'' abortions or try to perform the abortion themselves. In doing so, they risk serious injury and death, or in some cases, criminal charges. In my home state of California, a minor who wishes to obtain an abortion may do so without any legal requirements that she involve her parents or that she seek a court order exempting her from forced parental involvement requirements. This bill will override California's law for some minors obtaining abortions in California by requiring enforcement of other states' laws within California's borders. States such as California are most likely to be visited by minors in need of abortions. These states will bear the burden of having their medical personnel and clinic staff subject to potential liability from a number of complex provisions regarding conspiracy, accomplice and accessory liability. While this bill raises many obvious concerns, it also tramples on some of the most basic principles of federalism and state sovereignty. A core principle of American federalism is that laws of a state apply only within the state's boundaries. This bill would require some people to carry their own state's laws with them when traveling within the United States. Allowing a state's law to extend beyond its borders runs completely contrary to the state sovereignty principles on which this country is founded. Gambling for example is allowed in Nevada, but not California. If Congress enacts this legislation, it would be similar to making it a federal crime to spend a vacation in Las Vegas. Abortion should be made less necessary, not more difficult and dangerous. A comprehensive approach to promoting adolescent reproductive health and reducing teen pregnancy should require comprehensive sexuality and abstinence education as well as access to contraception and family planning services. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Girl Scouts of America on their 90th anniversary helping women of all ages ``discover the fun, friendship, and power of girls together.'' There are a myriad of GSA programs that have benefited kids in my community. LEAD (Leadership, Education and Development), Write On!, Si yo Puedo (yes I can), the Girl Scout Connection, and many others have helped girls in my district meet the challenges of the future. Particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, the Girl Scouting in the School Day program (GSSD) has helped over 3,100 at risk girls develop self-confidence by encouraging creativity and promoting life skills and values. Often these children are at high risk of dropping out of school, joining gangs, or using drugs and alcohol. GSSD has sponsored regular sessions, special events, and field trips to provide girls from over 51 Bay Area schools the experience of true camaraderie and friendship. Another program, Teen Power-From the Heart, is committed to helping pregnant teens and teen mothers develop high self-esteem in addition to career and parenting skills. Last year, over 200 girls participated in this program. I stress the importance of environmental education, and with the Program Adventure on Wheels for Girl Scouts (PAWS) over 3,000 girls in my district attended field trips to learn about protecting the environment. A program entitled ``Science is Super!'' has provided science and math enrichment for girls living in low income housing in the Bay Area. This program is helping combat the common misbelief that women are not as competent as men in math and science. ``Science is Super'' is a wonderful program to help girls take their interests in science and math further. It is unfortunate that many young women living in the United States cannot afford to join the Girl Scouts and take advantage of the countless experiences they have to offer. To tackle this problem, GSA created an Opportunity Fund to provide financial support for low income families whose children would like to join the Girl Scouts of America. This fund has provided grants to over 4,425 girls to participate in GSA programs. It is important that any young woman who wishes to be a Girl Scout have the opportunity to do so. One grandmother, who was able to send her three granddaughters to camp because of assistance by the Opportunity Fund, said camp meant: ``Six days with no gunfire, of not watching out for drug dealers. Six days of children's experiences that most of us take for granted: peace and play without looking over their shoulders. Six days that will last a lifetime!'' I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending the Girl Scouts of America for their 90 years of commitment to helping our women leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. I will try and summarize. Admittedly, this bill will encourage more plans. The best way to encourage plans is to have no restriction on them at all, and then the very rich will have plans, but they will not cover the employees. Professor Halperin at the Harvard Law School has written and suggested that this really solves a minor problem by creating a loophole through which we could march an elephant, or a donkey, too, perhaps, to be bipartisan in the closing minutes of this debate. But the fact is that this is a bill written to satisfy rich contributors to the Republican Party, and it gives assistance to major corporations and to owners of small businesses without any regard to protecting the employees who are under them. And it is couched in some language that will say there is a little bit here and there, but the fact is that we give the Treasury the right to make the decision of whether the plans meet the antidiscrimination rules, and then give the Treasury no direction. So if the Secretary of the Treasury does not act, there are no antidiscrimination rules. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is a bill that is unfair. It is a bill that helps only the very rich and the owners of businesses, but leaves the workers with less protection than they start with now. I guess that is what we have to expect from a Republican-controlled House. That is what they have been doing at every step of the way. There is the tax bill, which only gives 90 percent of the benefits to 2 percent of the richest people in this country. That is a Republican operation. There is a bill that talks about education, but does not fund it. That is a Republican plan. So one more step in a Republican-controlled House to hammer down the working people and the average person in this country to the benefit of the few rich people, the few extreme right-wing radicals who will support the Republican Party and their blatant, blatant, obsequious bowing to the wealthy and the large corporations in this country. It is something that should shame them. I do not know what they are going to tell their children some day: I came to Congress and helped the rich, and I destroyed the poor. I destroyed pension plans by supporting Enron. I took a lot of money from Enron, and I destroyed the pension plans of those workers. I denied seniors medical care coverage. I refused to give a pharmaceutical benefit. What a wonderful way to take their pension money that they are going to get, far better than any workers are going to get, and then sit and tell their children and grandchildren what they did for this country. I hope they enjoy that retirement, because the average working person in this country is not going to enjoy it if he is subject to the rules that are written in this law by the Republican majority in this House. Vote no on the bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. As many speakers who have gone before suggest, this bill points out so clearly the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Not only is this bill terribly unfair to the average working person and abundantly generous to rich and high-paid executives and to the insurance industry who are contributing to the authors of this plan for the munificent tax loopholes it creates, but in structuring the plan in the dead of night, there were provisions put back into the bill in the Committee on Ways and Means which further discriminate against the average worker in the small business. This is not about creating plans which, of course, is what the Republicans would like to do, to create plans for the rich executives. This is about fairness in coverage. This is how many people are covered by the plan in a fair way. We have had for many years antidiscrimination laws which this bill attempts to eliminate. These have been a subject of contention time and time again as the Republicans, if you choose to support that philosophy, would give tax loopholes to the very rich and ignore the average working person. This has been the interest of the people selling the plan, selling the investments, selling the insurance or selling the service, is to line the pockets of the rich who, of course, will continue their contributions to the Republican campaigns at the expense of the average working person who will get precious little from these plans. Why we should continue to think that we can say this helps anybody to retire, it helps a very small percentage of very rich people or small business owners to retire. And who pays for that? The average taxpayer pays for that. We pay for that tax loophole. And the price that we were previously extracting was that that small business owner had to give an equivalent protection to every employee in his or her business. This bill eviscerates that idea. There is some claptrappy language in here that will turn it over to the Secretary of the Treasury, but if the Secretary of the Treasury does nothing, there will be no requirement for antidiscrimination laws. And guess who will have won? The Republican Party and their rich friends and the people who sell these plans, the investment brokers and the insurance agents who do it. What is worse is that it was brought into the bill in the dead of night without the knowledge of the Democrats on the committee. To me, this is underhanded, it is sneaky, and it is indeed the operating procedure of the Republican Party. I cannot help but suggest, because our chairman brought up the idea of Marxism, and I guess he used to teach history or something like that at some junior college, and he might remember that it was in a European country in the thirties that the fascist leader of that country enlisted the corporate executives to support a war effort in the fight against Marxism and, in the process, enslaved the workers. This seems to be the pattern that the Republicans in this House are following today, by sneaking through in the dead of night, not telling us the truth about what is in the bill, and harming the average working American to the benefit of the very rich business owners. That is wrong, that is obscene, that is immoral. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).